Dumbledore is gay.

[Aquillion]

Rowling says so. I am so totally not joking (http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787). Specifically:"Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience errupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, It's not that odd when you think about it, I guess. Now I'm just waiting for her to confirm all the Harry / Draco slash as canonical.

[Tallis]

Does it really matter?

[Aquillion]

Not really. But it's slightly humorous in that it means that a great deal of the HP slash fanfic apparently picked up on something that the author actually intended.

[Executor]

Ummm, okay. But Harry/Draco is one of the most crack pairing in history. Does the phrase "THEY HATE EACH OTHER" mean anything to H/D people?

[ZeroNumerous]

Does the phrase "It's a (book/movie/tv series/cereal box/what-have-you) move on with your lives" mean anything to fanfiction writers?

[Executor]

I hate that stuff personally. Fanart is fine by me though, some of it is really fine stuff. That's where i've encountered said 'crack pairings' as they've come to be called. And I agree with you upon the fact that fanfiction writers are amongst the most pathetic peoples on earth.

Anyways, it's not like us here at GITP are much better. Constantly debating the X vs Y of Sci-fi and fantasy.

[Artemician]

I hate that stuff personally. Fanart is fine by me though, some of it is really fine stuff. That's where i've encountered said 'crack pairings' as they've come to be called. And I agree with you upon the fact that fanfiction writers are amongst the most pathetic peoples on earth.

Anyways, it's not like us here at GITP are much better. Constantly debating the X vs Y of Sci-fi and fantasy.

I take offence at your discrimination against Fanfic writers. Fanfic is a legit method of utilizing writing skills, and some fanfic really IS fine stuff. To me, there's not distinction between original fic and fanfic, in that they're all writing to me.

As to the Original Topic.. I, like Tallis am of the "Does it matter?" opinion. Someone's sexual orientation has nothing to do with how good of a person they are.

[Executor]

I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

[Kosmopolite]

Like all the published authors who write within the Star Wars, Doctor Who, Warhammer or whatever mythos?

On Dumbledore: I don't really care, since I'm not a big fan of the series, though it is good to have a positive gay role model in children's fiction. Shame it wasn't built upon in the texts. I'm not looking forward to the inevitable Internet jokes/memes, though.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

If you can think of a character who isn't, essentially, pre-existing (and isn't indescribably inane), you should probably win the nobel prize for literature. I hate to burst your bubble, but nothing is original, anymore.

[StickMan]

Oh that is so awesome. I love it now they are really going to ban the book in the south.

[Kosmopolite]

Oh that is so awesome. I love it now they are really going to ban the book in the south.

Seriously?

[Artemician]

I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

Aren't we all, in the end? Fiction borrows from fiction, calling what you write fanfiction is just going out to say so explicitly. And in fact, I find that fanfiction is a LOT harder to write than original fiction, largely due to the fact that you absolutely have to make people stay in character, rather than inventing stuff on the spot. This, in itself, is a challenge.

Anyone can have imagination. Making your imagination work out well... that's the crux of the matter.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Seriously?

Doubtful. It's just considered a solid fact on the internet that every single individual below the Mason-Dixon line is a racist homophobe, who will ban anything that isn't written by the Baptist Church.

[averagejoe]

I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

Not at all. Indeed, it's a rather good way to break people into writing. You learn music by playing other people's songs, which you have to do before you learn to create your own. Most people begin their artist's careers by copying the work of other artists, and it can be a good way to learn how to think spacially since it encourages you to look at the lines and such instead of the picture as a whole. Heck, there are many people who learn how to write by reading the works of others-fanfiction is just an intermediate step. Heck, back when I was just beginning to get into writing I created a fanfic or two, though I never actually wrote any of them down, and we didn't actually have the internet anyways.

In fact, although I have read very little fanfiction, I would conjecture that there is quite a bit that is imaginative. (The thing about "imaginative" is that most people don't really know what it means.) Heck, I can think of one or two fairly imaginative ideas off the top of my head which would technically be "fanfiction."

Not everyone is into worldbuilding, and there isn't anything wrong with that. It isn't inherantly unimaginative when a book is set in the real world and based on real people. No one calls historical fiction writers unimaginative. No one called Milton unimaginative, and, let's face it, he basically just wrote Biblical fanfiction. There are other things to focus on besides setting and character, and these are valid avenues to take for a writer.

Now, admittedly, most fanfiction is pretty bad, but let me let you in on a little secret: most writers are just as bad-it has nothing at all to do with genre. An amature artist can look at a drawing and say, "this looks nothing like a person," but a writer has no such baseline comparison, so all sorts of people can fool themselves into thinking they are good writers. If fanfiction does, in fact, tend to have a greater volume of bad works, I would be willing to bet that it's just because more "new" writers are attracted to fanfiction than in other genre.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Doubtful. It's just considered a solid fact on the internet that every single individual below the Mason-Dixon line is a racist homophobe, who will ban anything that isn't written by the Baptist Church.
Really, it's only about 80% of us.

[Dhavaer]

Meh. The real question is, what about Sirius and Remus? As long as she doesn't canonise Hagrid/Dobby or Umbridge/Thatcher, it's all good.

[thorgrim29]

I beg to differ, some fanfic can be extremely good, I'm thinking, for example, of a gent (or a lady, not sure) named DB Sommers, who rewrote Ranma 1/2 almost entirely, creating new characters, expending on known ones, and weaving his tale in a very funny and imaginative work. here, linkie, look for Shampoo 1/2:

http://www.florestica.com/dbsommer/index.htm


Of course, most of it is utter crap, but thats to be expected, most published books are utter crap, and they have to actually be read by someone before being published.

[Green Bean]

Ummm, okay. But Harry/Draco is one of the most crack pairing in history. Does the phrase "THEY HATE EACH OTHER" mean anything to H/D people?

Ten seconds on any Harry Potter fanfic site, and you'll take that back. Harry/Draco is far from the worst pairing I've seen... :smallamused:

[Dhavaer]

Ten seconds on any Harry Potter fanfic site, and you'll take that back. Harry/Draco is far from the worst pairing I've seen... :smallamused:

Looked harder. Umbridge/Thatcher is far, far worse.

[Aquillion]

Ummm, okay. But Harry/Draco is one of the most crack pairing in history. Does the phrase "THEY HATE EACH OTHER" mean anything to H/D people?But that's the point! Is their constant enmity merely a thin shield over the seething, boiling passions that lie beneath? Is it a lie to avoid admitting to the forbidden desires, to let them delay confessing to the love that dares not speak its name? Is the tension between them a hint at a deeper, more animal attraction?

No.
But that's never stopped fanfic writers before!

[Solo]

Looked harder. Umbridge/Thatcher is far, far worse.

Really? That's unusu- aagh! Mental image of Umbridge and Thatcher having sex! Nooo!

Everything is ruined forever!

[Lord Iames Osari]

But that's the point! Is their constant enmity merely a thin shield over the seething, boiling passions that lie beneath? Is it a lie to avoid admitting to the forbidden desires, to let them delay confessing to the love that dares not speak its name? Is the tension between them a hint at a deeper, more animal attraction?

No.
But that's never stopped fanfic writers before!

The build-up above the spoiler, combined with the actual content of the spoiler, made me laugh. Props to you, sir/madam.

[averagejoe]

But that's the point! Is their constant enmity merely a thin shield over the seething, boiling passions that lie beneath? Is it a lie to avoid admitting to the forbidden desires, to let them delay confessing to the love that dares not speak its name? Is the tension between them a hint at a deeper, more animal attraction?

No.
But that's never stopped fanfic writers before!

It would make a great movie. (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000956.html)

[Dhavaer]

Really? That's unusu- aagh! Mental image of Umbridge and Thatcher having sex! Nooo!

Everything is ruined forever!

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/EverythingisRuinedForever.jpg

Props to SpiderKoopa for the pic.

[Green Bean]

Looked harder. Umbridge/Thatcher is far, far worse.

Eeew. I wasn't expecting something that bad. Before now, the worst I'd seen was Bellatrix/Neville. :smalleek:

[Solo]

Now I think about Umbridge having sex with a purple elephant!

Everything is ruined forever... must soak brain in acid...

[Deepblue706]

I would compare my feelings on fan-fiction to how I feel about rap music: Not inherently bad, but I absolutely hate just about every song that fits into the genre. And yes, there are plenty of bad musicians that don't do rap, it's just that rap stands out as being that terrible, to me.

I'm sure there's a handful of well-written fan-fiction pieces out there, but I generally want to vomit when I hear anyone mention the concept because of how much bad material I've noticed. Fantasy Fan-Fic is probably the worst.

Oh, about Dumbledore? Totally saw that one coming - I never even bothered reading HP, though. The movies are enjoyable, if a bit silly.

[Eita]

Okay, I don't really care about Dumbledore being gay, but...

You know those hours he spent alone with Harry? :smalleek:

[averagejoe]

Okay, I don't really care about Dumbledore being gay, but...

You know those hours he spent alone with Harry? :smalleek:

You know how he was so agreeable when giving Dobby a job? :smallamused:

[Green Bean]

Okay, I don't really care about Dumbledore being gay, but...

You know those hours he spent alone with Harry? :smalleek:

Wouldn't that be the exact same thing as any female teacher spending time alone with Harry? :smallconfused:

[Dhavaer]

Okay, I don't really care about Dumbledore being gay, but...

You know those hours he spent alone with Harry? :smalleek:

So what? Hermione spent a fair few hours alone with Harry too.

[Solo]

You know how he was so agreeable when giving Dobby a job? :smallamused:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! Failed will safe against sanity damage!

[Eita]

Wouldn't that be the exact same thing as any female teacher spending time alone with Harry? :smallconfused:

Yeah. But in that case, said time was documented thoroughly. We have huge blank spaces when it comes to Harry's training with Dumbledore.

Although, him being gay does clear many things up.


So what? Hermione spent a fair few hours alone with Harry too.

I find that old man is far creepier then girl same age.

[Querzis]

Doesnt really surprise me even though I didnt really expected it. Dumbledore doesnt strike as the type of guy who had lots (if any) love relationship in his life so I dont think it really matter. Beside he was old man so, once again, I really dont care about that.

Anyway, on the fanfiction topic, I read some fanfic in my life who were better then the original fiction. But they are mostly videogames fanfic. If you try to do a fanfic of a series like dragonlance or of an anime like dragonball, most of the time its going to suck because we already know everything there is to know about the characters, so everything you write is nothing new or totally out of character. The only way to do have a good fanfic about a long series is to change some events or take minor character as your protagonist. But, once again, most of the really good fanfic I read are videogames fanfic because we barely know even the main character. We see their moves, how they fight, their quotes and how they act in the cinematics but we barely know their personnality. Hell, some videogames character (Mario, Link, Gordon Freeman) dont even talk in the games. So its quite easy to do a fanfic about them.


I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

I never read a story about an original character and I dont think I would like it since, to be original, the character would have to be really really really really strange. As in everytime he say or do something you think: «OMGWTFBBQ!»

[Tirian]

Eeew. I wasn't expecting something that bad. Before now, the worst I'd seen was Bellatrix/Neville. :smalleek:

I'm immune to anything HP can dish out. I've read Aslan/White Witch slash.

Out of a book.

Written by Neil Gaiman.

---

As far as Dumbledore goes, yay or whatever. I'm concerned that JKR is going to spend the next five years editing her world in these interviews. It's like George Lucas rewriting Star Wars -- just let it sit and recognize that you didn't write the story that would have written now.

[Green Bean]

Yeah. But in that case, said time was documented thoroughly. We have huge blank spaces when it comes to Harry's training with Dumbledore.

I don't really see that. They seem to be covered in the same level of detail, as long as there's no plot related revelations.

"Harry spent the evening with Dumbledore, scouring the memories of those close to Riddle."

"Harry spent the evening with Umbridge, writing lines until his hand was raw and bloody."

"Harry spent the evening with Snape, trying unsuccessfully to learn to defend his mind."

[Semidi]

Makes sense, Eccentric older man who has chic half-moon glasses, an awesome hat, and wears a dress (robe)... He must be gay! I should have thought of it sooner!

Though to be fair, I thought Ron and Harry were lovers at one point. Remember, sex isn't ever mentioned in Harry Potter Hetero and Homo versions included so it stands to reason anyone could have had an affair, but it's a children's story so it's not written.

Somewhere out there, someone is writing the bad kind of fan fiction. The kind with nipples.

[Porthos]

I'm immune to anything HP can dish out. I've read Aslan/White Witch slash.

Really? Have you ever heard of a little LJ community called Potter Sues? I thought I had a mentally thick hide. But, man, that place is scary.

Funny, coz they devote their lives to ripping the <blank> out of really bad fanfic. But still scary. :smalleek: :smalleek:

[averagejoe]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! Failed will safe against sanity damage!

I'll chalk that up as averagejoe: 1, human decency: 0. :smallamused:


Written by Neil Gaiman.

I have to admit, I did not see that coming.


"Harry spent the evening with Snape, trying unsuccessfully to learn to defend his mind."

Yowch. So, by "defend his mind," you mean...

[hanzo66]

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z305/hanzo661/fanfic.jpg

Feels like a fitting picture for the talk of Fanfics...

Still, fangirls will still have rampant imaginations and desires that sometimes go WAY too far.

[Green Bean]

Yowch. So, by "defend his mind," you mean...

Let's just say that in the fifth movie, I was a little weirded out by Snape.

"I will attempt to penetrate your mind." :smalleek:

[Setra]

I personally enjoy reading fanfics, in particular Novelizations of games are quite fun, when done well.

It's when people start inserting their own characters into fanfiction that things tend to get hairy, of course Mary Sues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Jade) exist within popular writing as well.

As to Dumbledore, I can say I didn't see it coming, but as someone else posted, I'm immune to anything HP can dish out, I have several female friends who seem to think I am interested in yaoi, and love to share pictures.

[Green Bean]

As to Dumbledore, I can say I didn't see it coming, but as someone else posted, I'm immune to anything HP can dish out, I have several female friends who seem to think I am interested in yaoi, and love to share pictures.

Heh. I've been there too. Except that it was weird anime yaoi. And they didn't tell me what the word actually meant. On a totally unrelated note, did you know that many anime yaoi guys look a great deal like girls?

[Setra]

Heh. I've been there too. Except that it was weird anime yaoi. And they didn't tell me what the word actually meant. On a totally unrelated note, did you know that many anime yaoi guys look a great deal like girls?
Oh of course I was referring to anime Yaoi. Some of it gets pretty creepy.

And yes.. that's common knowledge, I make VERY SURE something is female before thinking "That's sexy" or "That's cute".

You never know sometimes. (http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r119/bridget1156/Gaara-trap.png)

[Eita]

Yeah. You should see that one image on "LittleCloud"'s Encyclopedia Dramatica entry.

Had to look at it awhile to realize what was going on.

Thank god it was censored.

[Tirian]

Written by Neil Gaiman.

I have to admit, I did not see that coming.


I don't think I did either. The story is called The Problem with Susan, which is a somewhat seminal work that is a popular rallying point for the people who think that it was a crime that Susan was not allowed to join all of the other kids in Heaven at the end of The Chronicles of Narnia. However, as the story progresses, it turns out that her real problem is that she dreams about Aslan and the White Witch getting it on, quite explicitly. And once you read it, you can't ever ever unread it, ever.

[Green Bean]

Oh of course I was referring to anime Yaoi. Some of it gets pretty creepy.

And yes.. that's common knowledge, I make VERY SURE something is female before thinking "That's sexy" or "That's cute".

You never know sometimes. (http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r119/bridget1156/Gaara-trap.png)

You forgot the ultimate example: Bridget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Guilty_Gear))

[Eita]

Oh of course I was referring to anime Yaoi. Some of it gets pretty creepy.

And yes.. that's common knowledge, I make VERY SURE something is female before thinking "That's sexy" or "That's cute".

You never know sometimes. (http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r119/bridget1156/Gaara-trap.png)

Case in point, Jun. (Grr. Link is down. Just Google Image search "Jun Happiness!")

Yeah. That's a guy.

[Eita]

You forgot the ultimate example: Bridget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Guilty_Gear))

I still think Jun is a better example. He even acts like a girl and has a male harem (according to the scant information I've read on him).

[Setra]

You forgot the ultimate example: Bridget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Guilty_Gear))
Bridget is common knowledge though, at this point.


Other (http://i12.tinypic.com/4pu2u5f.jpg) characters (http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j41/risurisu/risurisu/naruto_haku.jpg) may (http://www.artoki.co.uk/artwork/FMA_Envy.jpg) not (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/kazecloud/1186210899124.jpg) be. (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/kazecloud/1186526688446.jpg)

Just a note: Yes, they are all male.

[Green Bean]

Lousy Japan, screwing with my head with their man-women. :smalltongue:

[Hallavast]

I don't think I did either. The story is called The Problem with Susan, which is a somewhat seminal work that is a popular rallying point for the people who think that it was a crime that Susan was not allowed to join all of the other kids in Heaven at the end of The Chronicles of Narnia. However, as the story progresses, it turns out that her real problem is that she dreams about Aslan and the White Witch getting it on, quite explicitly. And once you read it, you can't ever ever unread it, ever.

Wait, what's wrong with Susan? I like Susan. :smalleek:

[Solo]

Everything...ruined....forever....

[Setra]

Everything...ruined....forever....
I hope it was my pictures :smallbiggrin:

[Executor]

Ahh, and now you people see the foolishness, nay, the madness in probing the rotten, stinking, festering bowels of the underworld people call fanfiction.

You all dared to sow the seeds of misfortune that is looking at fanfic, and now you reap the harvest of disgust! And you people said hating fanfiction wasn't all bad, HA!

[Solo]

Ahh, and now you people see the foolishness, nay, the madness in probing the rotten, stinking, festering bowels of the underworld people call fanfiction.

You all dared to sow the seeds of misfortune that is looking at fanfic, and now you reap the harvest of disgust! And you people said hating fanfiction wasn't all bad, HA!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Fanfiction R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Wgah'nagl fhtagn! Wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[rubakhin]

Looked harder. Umbridge/Thatcher is far, far worse.


I've read that. It was actually pretty good. Not erotic by any means, of course, but psychologically compelling. IIRC, it was more of an unrequited thing on Umbridge's part, no porn.

I don't write a lot of fanfiction because I find working with somebody else's canon to be unnatural and restricting, but I do read it on occasion. Very, very happy about this. If not because Grindelwald/Dumbledore is my One True Pairing (which it is) then for the significance of having a respectfully handled gay character in the series. Brave of Rowling.

[Solo]

... Please tell me Thatcher refers to some obscure HP character, and not the Iron Lady.

[rubakhin]

... Please tell me Thatcher refers to some obscure HP character, and not the Iron Lady.


Iron Lady, yes. And it was good, goddamn it. Moreover, I'm going to find it and link it here. *searches*

There we are. (http://alibi-factory.livejournal.com/658.html)

[Setra]

Ahh, and now you people see the foolishness, nay, the madness in probing the rotten, stinking, festering bowels of the underworld people call fanfiction.

You all dared to sow the seeds of misfortune that is looking at fanfic, and now you reap the harvest of disgust! And you people said hating fanfiction wasn't all bad, HA!
Okay now you're just getting on my nerves.

Plenty (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2051403/1/Breath_Of_Fire_War_Of_The_Dragons) of (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/948286/1/) fanfiction (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/242786/1/) can (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2306216/1/) be (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1185735/1/) ente (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/327692/1/Three_Sides_of_the_Moon_Part_one_Trust)rtai (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/365287/1/Three_Sides_of_the_Moon_Part_two_Betrayal)ning (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/998924/1/Three_Sides_of_the_Moon_Part_three_Hope) <---- Three links in the last word

It's not all crap. Would you like me to insult things you like by pointing out all of the flaws but none of the redeeming aspects?

Because anything can sound like crap if you do that.

[Solo]

Iron Lady, yes. And it was good, goddamn it. Moreover, I'm going to find it and link it here. *searches*

There we are. (http://alibi-factory.livejournal.com/658.html)

*Solo rocks in a fetal position in the far corner of the room*

[averagejoe]

I don't think I did either. The story is called The Problem with Susan, which is a somewhat seminal work that is a popular rallying point for the people who think that it was a crime that Susan was not allowed to join all of the other kids in Heaven at the end of The Chronicles of Narnia. However, as the story progresses, it turns out that her real problem is that she dreams about Aslan and the White Witch getting it on, quite explicitly. And once you read it, you can't ever ever unread it, ever.

I don't know what's more disturbing; that, or the fact that I suddenly desire to read it. :smalleek:

[Setra]

I don't know what's more disturbing; that, or the fact that I suddenly desire to read it. :smalleek:
Don't worry, it's just curiosity.

Not latent.. um.. beastiality?

[Captain van der Decken]

Ugh. Read some of the comments on that news link.

[Solo]

Ugh. Read some of the comments on that news link.

Word.

Its not like Dumbledore's sexual orientation mattered at all in the books....

[Nerd-o-rama]

Umbridge was just Thatcher as a schoolteacher anyway.

And I don't trust that link. This is a work computer, I can't afford even the potential of porn in my cache.

Sigh. This was addressed to the Umbridge/Thatcher convo last page. I apparently missed that it wasn't the end of the thread.

[turkishproverb]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Fanfiction R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Wgah'nagl fhtagn! Wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Foool! YOu've summoned the worst fanfiction of all!

NOw I must forevery try to clense my mind of thatcher.

Seriously though I've got no problem with fan fiction, especially of older works, as copyright is too powerful nowadays.

[averagejoe]

*reads comments*

Oh, right, the real world, where anonymity gives them liscence to be a-holes. Ah, well, the current company consists of pretty cool people, and that's what matters, I suppose.

Amidst all the flaming, however, I came across this quote, which made me wince:


Comment: omg the entire harry potter series is so realistic and easy to believe that i refuse to believe otherwise. i know witches and wizards and magic are real. I can feel them all around me. i think i may hold some magical powers because i don't think i'm like everyone else. I'm different. i haven't any money, i live with my aunt because my parents died when i was a child. as i read the series, it all seemed so familiar to me. i knew at once that i was not alone, and i can only wait for the day that my "hagrid" will come to rescue. it's not that i don't like my life here, it's just that i feel as though i was meant for a greater purpose. my initials are AB abnd one day, everyone will realize that magic is real. that harry's world is not made up

I'm not sure whether to be sad, nostalgic, or appalled. Or any other of a number of different things this makes me want to feel. (Not the least of which is cringing at the fact that the series could be described as "realistic." Even allowing for magic, there's some pretty bad questions raised by sloppy worldbuilding.)

[Aquillion]

Wait, what's wrong with Susan? I like Susan. :smalleek:She was banned from Narnia (or, to put it more plainly, damned for all eternity) for wearing lipstick and dating guys.

Yes.

[Solo]

Originally Posted by sindris
Comment: omg the entire harry potter series is so realistic and easy to believe that i refuse to believe otherwise. i know witches and wizards and magic are real. I can feel them all around me. i think i may hold some magical powers because i don't think i'm like everyone else. I'm different. i haven't any money, i live with my aunt because my parents died when i was a child. as i read the series, it all seemed so familiar to me. i knew at once that i was not alone, and i can only wait for the day that my "hagrid" will come to rescue. it's not that i don't like my life here, it's just that i feel as though i was meant for a greater purpose. my initials are AB abnd one day, everyone will realize that magic is real. that harry's world is not made up

Probably made up.

I hope to the Gods that it's a joke.

Please let it be a joke.

[Artemician]

Probably made up.

I hope to the Gods that it's a joke.

Please let it be a joke.

It probably isn't. I recall hearing some news a few years back that a kid jumped off a window thinking that she was a Flying Pokemon, and thus could fly. Human stupidity is one of those things that just has no limits.

[Solo]

It probably isn't. I recall hearing some news a few years back that a kid jumped off a window thinking that she was a Flying Pokemon, and thus could fly. Human stupidity is one of those things that just has no limits.

Eh, chlorine for the gene pool.

[Querzis]

It probably isn't. I recall hearing some news a few years back that a kid jumped off a window thinking that she was a Flying Pokemon, and thus could fly. Human stupidity is one of those things that just has no limits.

Its not that, he saw a flying pokemon saving his trainer from a fall and thought that his pokemon would come to save him. The kid who jumped off a window with his Superman costume now that one though he could fly! But those are just childrens so they are naive, what really annoy me is the sect who think that the Matrix is real...or just about any sect actually.

[CrazedGoblin]

i don't care to be honest its still an annoying series

[DomaDoma]

Eeew. I wasn't expecting something that bad. Before now, the worst I'd seen was Bellatrix/Neville. :smalleek:

I'm not familiar with this Thatcher, but if it actually makes a pairing worse than Bellatrix/Neville... that is one seriously impressive crossover. Foremost, you don't get the colossal mortal-enemy-squick, seeing as they're from different universes.

On the other hand, y'know... Umbridge.

Talking of mortal enemy squick: that one scene from that one show, with the bells and the rain? (Have to tread carefully these days...) It doesn't mean they have no sense of time and place with their fanservice - only that they have no sense of accessibility with their symbolism. Your best bet is to ask a Catholic.

Back on topic, though, Dumbledore being in love with him just adds a whole new dimension of tragedy to the affair. It also explains, more than anything we'd hitherto seen, why he stalled. That sort of shame, having fallen not only for the ideas, but also for the man, before that three-way duel... oh, man.

[Catch]

My thoughts:

This revelation bothers me quite a bit. Not that Dumbledore is gay, but the way in which J.K. Rowling chose to disclose it. Personally, I think this information should have been in the book, not in a packed house full of cameras and reporters. I really the way Rowling spun Dumbledore's tale, now that I know, but that knowledge would have made the book a far more captivating read. Outing him publicly really cheapens the value of something that is otherwise very important to the story and should have been included. Explained this way, it seems much more like a publicity stunt than anything else.

I can understand why she left it ambiguous, however. The Harry Potter series, despite its wide readership, is predominately a children's series and writing in a gay character might be objectionable for parents, though I believe that if kids can deal with death they should be able to accept an alternate lifestyle. The wizarding world, at least according to Rowling, seemed to be mostly asexual, the most titillating aspects are basically G-rated teen romance, so I suppose that making Dumbledore's sexuality very apparent might clash with the relative sexual vacancy of the novels. Still though, I wish she had made it a little more overt, just enough to know but not to scream it on the rooftops. Dumbledore is an awesome character and knowing the greater motive and struggle of his life would have added to the story, not detracted.

On a somewhat pleasant note--at least for some folk--there is a new legitimacy to Harry Potter slash fanfic. I'm sure there's plenty of Dumbledore / Grindenwald tales out there--and many more more marinating as I write. I wonder, though, what new sizzling tales will find root now that Rowling has outed one of our favorite wizards? The answer, of course, will destroy us all.

Except the fangirls and boys. A great collective "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" just sounded 'round the world.

[Om]

Very, very happy about this. If not because Grindelwald/Dumbledore is my One True Pairing (which it is) then for the significance of having a respectfully handled gay character in the series. Brave of Rowling.Except that she studiously avoided mentioning this in the books because that might actually hurt sales.


This revelation bothers me quite a bit. Not that Dumbledore is gay, but the way in which J.K. Rowling chose to disclose it.This isn't the first time she's done this. Remember the interview in which it was revealed that Harry and Ron became Aurours (or whatever thy were called)? My money is on a constant stream of Potter related books/media that will fill in these little details.

[Catch]

This isn't the first time she's done this. Remember the interview in which it was revealed that Harry and Ron became Aurours (or whatever thy were called)? My money is on a constant stream of Potter related books/media that will fill in these little details.

As far as I read, Rowling explained that the seven 'Potter books were going to be the first and last. No prequels, no sequels, nada. I could certainly see her reversing that decision, what with the oodles of money to be made, but so far it seems that she declined to out Dumbledore in print to preserve sales. Now that she's sold millions of copies, I'd presume she's comfortable disclosing all the tidbits that she was too timid to print.

I respect her for writing the story her way but I can't help but shake my head.

[DomaDoma]

Pur-lease. Any way you look at it, JKR has more money than she'll ever know what to do with - do you honestly think she goes to such lengths for a few million more or less?

[Yoritomo Himeko]

I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

Well, my only problem with fanfiction is that sometimes the fans won't respect the wishes of the authors they supposedly admire. JK Rowling doesn't want pornographic stories written about her characters, and yet the "fans" do it anyway.

Sometimes fanauthors try to make money from fanfiction. This is a huge problem because that's when the lawyers come into play. This is where authors and lawyers send out "cease and desist" letter, shut down sites, and sue people.

And as a few posters said before in another thread, leeching. Using someone else's work to promote your own.

Sure, all fiction borrows from something else, but if you take out all the easily recognizable elements from your inspiration, and add your own personal elements, then it becomes your own. Remember that all writers were inspired by other books, movies, or something else in their life.

For example, there's nothing wrong with writing about a monk/paladin who has great fighting abilites if you maybe change her name, her nationality, or even her gender. Keep only what you really liked about the character and change everything else.

There's nothing wrong with writing about characters who are similar to those in other works, or creating something similar to your favorite book, comic, or show. I'm sure Rich was inspired by other webcomics, DnD, and whatever else he had come across. That's what makes OOTS so unique and special.

Sure, no plots or characters are completely original, but if you put your own personal touch to something, then it becomes yours.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.

[rubakhin]

Except that she studiously avoided mentioning this in the books because that might actually hurt sales.

Ehh ... baby steps. *shrug* I don't know, I like to think she did this all in good faith.

[averagejoe]

And as a few posters said before in another thread, leeching. Using someone else's work to promote your own.

Sure, all fiction borrows from something else, but if you take out all the easily recognizable elements from your inspiration, and add your own personal elements, then it becomes your own. Remember that all writers were inspired by other books, movies, or something else in their life.

For example, there's nothing wrong with writing about a monk/paladin who has great fighting abilites if you maybe change her name, her nationality, or even her gender. Keep only what you really liked about the character and change everything else.

There's nothing wrong with writing about characters who are similar to those in other works, or creating something similar to your favorite book, comic, or show. I'm sure Rich was inspired by other webcomics, DnD, and whatever else he had come across. That's what makes OOTS so unique and special.

Sure, no plots or characters are completely original, but if you put your own personal touch to something, then it becomes yours.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.

To learn to do something creative, a certain amount of imitation is necessary. I'm not saying that anyone should become a professional fanfiction writer, if such a thing was even possible, but it's a great way to break into writing. No one writes a masterpiece on their first go, and the intermediate steps are different for everyone. No one bashes a budding artist for copying other art, and no one bashes a budding musician for learning songs that others have written. It's the same thing.

[Om]

Pur-lease. Any way you look at it, JKR has more money than she'll ever know what to do with - do you honestly think she goes to such lengths for a few million more or less?A few million? Yes.

[Machete]

I know I would. I would extract every last penny from the series in the most low legal risk ways possible.

"In fact, Harry was Bi- all ALONG!"

"Ron and him had some.. interesting moments. Nothing too serious."

CHA CHING

"Snape? Totally into bondage. Come on, those sessions with Harry and the mind invading spells. It was hard to MISS!"

CHA CHING

"Draco was into GMILF."

CHA CHING

[Aquillion]

My thoughts:

This revelation bothers me quite a bit. Not that Dumbledore is gay, but the way in which J.K. Rowling chose to disclose it. Personally, I think this information should have been in the book, not in a packed house full of cameras and reporters. I really the way Rowling spun Dumbledore's tale, now that I know, but that knowledge would have made the book a far more captivating read.It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Dumbledore was the subject of a tell-all gossip book in Book 7. I can understand Dumbledore deciding that he doesn't need to bring up his personal life with the students (we know nothing about most of the other teachers' personal lives, after all--with one or two exceptions, they could all be gay or straight for all we know), but are we really supposed to believe that wossname the muckraking journalist didn't even think it worth hinting at?

Even if gay relationships aren't considered noteworthy in the HP universe, the fact that it was a relationship with the most famous BBEG before Voldemort really would be.

[Mr.Huggyface]

not surprising, really. and i think that dumbledore saying "naked time" in potter puppet pals: the mysterious ticking noise works with that. and dumbledore liked purple...

[Solo]

but are we really supposed to believe that wossname the muckraking journalist didn't even think it worth hinting at?

She did hint that Dumbledore and Harry were spending time together, calling it "unhealthy" or something like that.

[DomaDoma]

A few million? Yes.

When she's already got more money than her grandchildren will ever be able to squander, with the anti-spoiler atmosphere cloaking any revelations about Dumbledore in-book, and with all this bonus information in online chats and publicly reported press conferences? No.

[Machete]

If I had 10 million dollars but could make millions more. I'd do it.

Use the money to fund a private war to protect farmers in Darfur.
Take Sherman Austin's budding rap career PRO.
Funding for Copwatch across the US.
Funding for Crimethinc and Indymedia.

Buy a Trojan suit from that guy who made teh bear proof suit.
Build an underground survival bunker with solar power and enough supplies and replacement parts to last three generations and become self-sustainable through pre-industrial agriculture.
Buy a boat or two, some supplies, and get some volunteers to help me hunt modern day pirates.

so on and so on

I have projects to fund and charcters to declare gay.

[Kosmopolite]

Whoever thought 'right, that's enough money. No more earning for me!' She'll bring out more books. Maybe not Harry Potter, but she hasn't stopped writing.

[Solo]

Use the money to fund a private war to protect farmers in Darfur.

I recall Blackwater saying they'd do it if they got paid.

[Nightwing]

I am gay and the fact that people make a big deal out of the fact that some character in a book is gay really offends me.

[rubakhin]

Eh ... I'm gay, too. Yeah, it shouldn't be a big deal, but it is, and we have to at least recognize this as a step in the right direction. At least most of the reaction has been positive.

[Kosmopolite]

On here, perhaps. Elsewhere, I've seen either anger or ridicule. It would've been better (and braver) if she'd included it in one of the books.

[averagejoe]

On here, perhaps. Elsewhere, I've seen either anger or ridicule. It would've been better (and braver) if she'd included it in one of the books.

That's probably true, but then it would have been marketed like,

"In the next Harry Potter book, one of the characters is GAY! Find out who inside!

Oh, yeah, and some people die, including maybe Harry, blah blah blah fight against evil, blah blah blah."

That would have irritated me to no end.

[Dhavaer]

I suspect it would have been just as big a deal if she'd said that Dumbledore was sleeping with McGonnagal.

[Nightwing]

Yes, making popular characters gay is a step in the right direction, but the making a big deal out of things like this is just my personal thing. I have gay other gay friends and they dont seem to mind as much.

[Raistlin1040]

Now, I'm straight, so I wouldn't be able to look at this from a homosexual standpoint. But personally? It's not really a big deal, and all the gay people saying it's an insult or whatever are over reacting.

I have a friend, and at our school we did a canned food drive. If you sold X amount of cans you got a little prize. One of the prizes was this weird little sports statue thing. It had a bunch of popular sports figures in animal form. Tiger woods was on there, and he was a black fox. My friend said "That's so racist" and I said "He's a black person. Would it make sense for him to be a white fox? It's not racist."

This is the same thing in my mind. If Dumbledore had been shown as homosexual in the books, would it be any different? Not really. It's a character with a sexual preferance. Big deal. All homophobes need to just get over it, and everyone that thinks it's an insult needs to consider that A) it's a fictional character, B) I'd bet my Les Paul that J.K. Rowling didn't mean to offend anyone, and C) Really, why should you be offended? Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest wizard of all time.

[Nightwing]

I will admit I over react a bit, I'm just sensitive about it.

[StupidFatHobbit]

Dumbledore and Grindelwald? Well ok then. Extra bonus backstory is always fine with me. I can't say it affects my view of the characters or the books in any way at all. It makes their duel a little more tragic, but not much more than it already was, since we found out in the last book that they had been close friends and Dumbledore was obviously strongly affected when Grindelwald went bad.

When I heard, the first three words that came to mind were Irreconcilable Alignment Differences. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html) :smallbiggrin:

[Kosmopolite]

Hahahaha! StupidFatHobbit gets a cookie! (Great name too)


On Dumbledore, I think it's a little iffy of JK to leave it until everyone who want the book has it before mentioning that small, controversial fact. It might've been a step in the right direction if she'd been brave enough to include it. As it is, it just seems like at best a pointless detail and at worst post-publishing tokenism.

[SurlySeraph]

Frankly, it seems to me like JK just wanted to get one last jab in at the people who accused her of promoting Satanism and suchlike. I don't begrudge her the opportunity, but declaring that a character is gay long after it could have any effect on sales isn't really striking a blow for (or against) gay rights.

[Iku Rex]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/dumbledore-is-gay-lolcat.jpg

[Setra]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/dumbledore-is-gay-lolcat.jpg

Bwahahahaha

[averagejoe]

Wait, I've got it. Pretty soon she's going to release the Harry Potter Special Editions. She'll be like, "Yeah, I always wanted to mention that Dumbledore was gay, but we lacked the time and funding when I wrote it the first time around." And then she'll change it so that the actors who play the ghosts of Harry's parents in the fourth book look more like the kids who played Harry's parents in the flashbacks. And she'll change it so that Harry cursed first.

[Cade]

You know, she is writing the HP Encyclopedia.... All this random stuff is going to be in there.

[The Extinguisher]

In before Ronfoy!

Anyway, I have no problem with this. It's not that big of deal. It's an interesting piece of backstory that really had no place as a "ZOMG revalation" in the book that wouldn't have been way too overdramatic.

As for fanfiction, I've seen some really good ones. "The House That Riddle Crashed At" is a great example. They're no different than normal fiction. There's good and bad ones, utterly horrible ones, ones that are written because the author is a sick and twisted individual and ones that are "lol they had sex". Just like normal fiction.

[averagejoe]

"The House That Riddle Crashed At" is a great example.

I have never read this, but you'll excuse me if I'm sceptical about its virtues. Just reading the title is painful.

Sorry, but I seriously phisically cringed when I read it. It's just bad english, in every sense of the word.

[The Extinguisher]

"The House That Riddle Crashed At"
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/646335/1/

The title is derived from a similar Harry Potter chapter.

[SmartAlec]

What rankles most as far as I'm concerned is that this is feels like an attempt to claim there's some kind of contemporary social-commentary aspect in the Potter books. Which... there isn't. Sorry, JKR, but if you didn't put it in the book, it's... not in the book.

Slightly more disturbing, though, is Aberforth, Albus's brother, who it is claimed 'has an unhealthy relationship with goats'. In putting these two in the same family, what's she saying? That homosexuality should be equated with bestiality?

Whoops!

Also, I'm thinking back with a certain amusement to a claim someone made: that Tonks was brought into the story purely to prove that Lupin wasn't gay, seeing as the potential 'lycanthropy as homosexuality' metaphor opened a whole new can o' worms.

[Verruckt]

As to Dumbledore, I can say I didn't see it coming, but as someone else posted, I'm immune to anything HP can dish out, I have several female friends who seem to think I am interested in yaoi, and love to share pictures.

dear god man... this coming from someone who has braved the far realm
(a.k.a. 4chan), I pity you

edit




Also, I'm thinking back with a certain amusement to a claim someone made: that Tonks was brought into the story purely to prove that Lupin wasn't gay, seeing as the potential 'lycanthropy as homosexuality' metaphor opened a whole new can o' worms.

especially ironic considering that it appeared fairly obvious to me at least that Tonks was a lesbian.

[Dhavaer]

especially ironic considering that it appeared fairly obvious to me at least that Tonks was a lesbian.

Tonks is a shapeshifter. I'd say gynophile would be more accurate than lesbian.

[Verruckt]

I thought the hacked off hair that changes colors vibrantly and the whole tom-boy soldier thing was the tip off, granted that is stereotypical but literature tends to lead towards archetypes.

[Netaria]

I'm sorry, it's just fanfiction seems, to me, to be the last refuge of the terminally unimaginative. If you can't think of a good yarn to spin without using preexisting characters, you probably shouldn't be writing.

While there are certainly some terminally unimaginitive fanfic writers, especially since it has somehow become so dang popular amongst teens....not ALL fanfic writers are incapable of writing good original works, a lot of published authors got their start in fanfiction.

Fanfic writers just see stories involving the characters that haven't been written, and decide to fill the gap. *shrugs* No reason to get so petty about it.

--------

As for the OP, I was rather pleased to find that tidbit out today, but mainly because in reading the last book I just couldn't help, but to think exactly that about young Albus and Grindelvald. (Previous to that I hadn't put a bit of thought to Albus' sexuality. heh

[Setra]

dear god man... this coming from someone who has braved the far realm
(a.k.a. 4chan), I pity you
/b/ isn't always that bad, you can find a lot of funny stuff. Though you can also find just about anything else.

And now I'm remembering the bad things I have found there.

Make the images stop mommy *curls up in fetal position*

[Solo]

Slightly more disturbing, though, is Aberforth, Albus's brother, who it is claimed 'has an unhealthy relationship with goats'. In putting these two in the same family, what's she saying? That homosexuality should be equated with bestiality?



He was practicing inappropriate charms on a goat.

[averagejoe]

Also, I'm thinking back with a certain amusement to a claim someone made: that Tonks was brought into the story purely to prove that Lupin wasn't gay, seeing as the potential 'lycanthropy as homosexuality' metaphor opened a whole new can o' worms.

Kinda makes you wonder what the real nature of their relationship was. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html)


He was practicing inappropriate charms on a goat.

"So, what's a nice bovid like you doing in a place like this?"

"Hey, don't I know you? Yeah, you're the girl with the beautiful smile."

"Do you know what it's like to have sex with a machine? Cause that's what it's like with me."

[EvilElitest]

Oh that is so awesome. I love it now they are really going to ban the book in the south.

we are?


Doubtful. It's just considered a solid fact on the internet that every single individual below the Mason-Dixon line is a racist homophobe, who will ban anything that isn't written by the Baptist Church.
but i didn't, i just lived there had have the accent, i didn't, awwwwwwwwww


I feel sad now
from,
EE

[LosingCTRL]

Well, the actor who played Gandalf was gay, too. I don't really see the big deal.

Maybe it's the beards.

[bugsysservant]

Well my first thought was: "hmm, an author I don't really like has decided to make a sensationalist announcement that is both greedy (can't hurt major sales) and self serving (I championed social issues in my books! In fact Dumbledore is GAY!!!1!) which trivializes a civil rights struggle which needs all the help it can get."

My second was: "My god, she's still fleshing out details. For the love of God, don't let there be more books!"

My third: "In fact, she specifically brought up substantial sections of wizarding lore in the seventh book, which had been largely ignored in the others. Could this have been a segway?"

My fourth: "Gah! That's reminiscent of Lord of the Rings' references to extensive backstory. Is she really trying to mimic Tolkien?"

Then I realized that many people already like her more than Tolkien, and that numerous of my friends have reread her books but refuse to even finish LoTR, of touch the Silmarillion. And that if she writes more, they will happilly read them, while relegating the brilliant works of one of my favorite authors to the dustbin.

And then I died a little inside.

So thanks to you people and J K Rowling, part of my soul is irretrievably gone. I hope you're happy. :smallyuk:

[Trog]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

*sniggers* "Headmaster" *sniggers*

[Jerthanis]

And then I died a little inside.

So thanks to you people and J K Rowling, part of my soul is irretrievably gone. I hope you're happy. :smallyuk:

Yup, I am :smallwink:

I for one, really dislike Lord of the Rings, and find it an interminable and unenjoyable read. Compared to the Hobbit, which was an amazing piece of fantasy literature, it's like it's not even written by the same person. I've heard the Silmarillion is good though, so I might read that someday.

As far as Dumbledore is concerned, I can't say I suspected it, but it does make a lot of sense. Through the first 6 books we keep seeing Dumbledore and hearing about all his legendary exploits and merits, and how awesome he is... but never hear about any of his past loves even in passing. Then in the seventh book we go deeper into his youth, and depict it with more clarity than before... and he's shown having close discussions with another wizard in very intense ways... often behind closed doors. I can't be the only one who got a strong Professor Xavier/Magneto vibe from that friendship.

[bugsysservant]

Yup, I am :smallwink:

buh, wah, gah... :smallfrown:

[Jerthanis]

buh, wah, gah... :smallfrown:

Not really! I was kidding! Hence the :smallwink:

You're certainly free to enjoy LotR, which I hate, just as much as I'm free to enjoy Harry Potter (though certainly not as much as you like LotR apparently), which you hate so much.

I like Harry Potter because when I was reading it, I was engaged and happy... I dislike LotR because while I was reading it I was bored and disaffected. That's all!

[bugsysservant]

Not really! I was kidding! Hence the :smallwink:

You're certainly free to enjoy LotR, which I hate, just as much as I'm free to enjoy Harry Potter (though certainly not as much as you like LotR apparently), which you hate so much.

I like Harry Potter because when I was reading it, I was engaged and happy... I dislike LotR because while I was reading it I was bored and disaffected. That's all!

Yeah, I kinda got that. Honestly, I think LoTR is overrated as far as Tolkien's works go, and can only be really appreciated if you've read most of what comes before it (or at least the Silmarillion) when I first read it I couldn't make it through the boring bits about hobbits after the battle of Helm's Deep, though I eventually managed to slog through to more interesting parts.

The problem with Harry Potter, as far as I see it, is that very few fans (that I have met) share your attitude. Most argue to the death about its literary merits; I can't count the times I have had to defend myself after saying I don't like Rowling. Personally, I enjoyed the first three or four, but kind of out grew them after that, and was left with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction after finishing. But to each his own I suppose.

[The Extinguisher]

To be fair, I can't stand Tolkien in general, which is why I never finished LoTR or The Silmarillion (I managed to drag myself through The Hobbit though). :smallamused:
But I don't think Rowling is "all that and a bag of chips" to quote old 90's (80's?) sayings.

I was disappointed by the seventh book. The biggest twist was that Aberforth was the innkeeper of that one place. And the ending was written like a bad fanfiction. "The most horrible spell ever with complicated rituals can be done by accident when your half dead" and "Illegal curses for everyone!" bits where just so bleh.

As for the topic at hand I've said before (can't remember if it was here or on another forum) It's better that it was revealed later, as it wouldn't work in story without being too cheezy.

[Copacetic]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

*sniggers* "Headmaster" *sniggers*

Och, you killed part of my sanitiey. Sounds like some strange brand of vibrator...

[horseboy]

Okay, really, did everyone really not realize that? That was my first question after reading Goblet of Fire. I asked my buddy's wife, since they were her books and had read them all to that point (I think Phoenix had just come out) and she was all upset with me even joking about it. Now I need to call them up and sing the "I was right song".

[psychoduck14]

wow...who would have thought this many people cant stand Tolkien or LotR... The LotR books are my favorite books ever! im even trying to read the Silmarillion. I however cant stand harry potter its to cheezy for me.

[averagejoe]

wow...who would have thought this many people cant stand Tolkien or LotR... The LotR books are my favorite books ever! im even trying to read the Silmarillion. I however cant stand harry potter its to cheezy for me.

Obviously they don't have the patience for a good read. In my strictly objective, unbiased in any way opinion, which in no way tries to degrade people with opinions different from mine, that is. :smallwink:

[skywalker]

Dumbledore being gay doesn't really surprise me.

Nothing about those books surprises me anymore. I did question why she said it, though, I've always been one to say: "Let your books do the talking about your books," which is always the way she's seemed to do up until this point. It was strange to me that she just started throwing those "facts" out there, I guess it's because people still want more information, despite the fact that the books are over, and there's no other way for her to get it across anymore.

I thought the last book was really good up until the point where it was revealed that:

Snape was in love with Harry's mom

I always thought that was just stupid crap from fanfic, it never occurred to me that she might be that un-original. The epilogue was also on the level of some 13 year old fanfic writer, not an author who's sold millions of books.

My contribution to the Rowling vs. Tolkien debate:
I love the works of both. Rowling's because they draw me in, they get me involved in the characters, I can be literally giddy like a school girl at their triumphs, and have similar emotions for their failures. Tolkien is much more of a biblical, epic sort of guy. There isn't much Tolkien I find boring(the Council of Elrond being a noted exception) but Tolkien is interesting on a very different level, a more ancient level. Rowling's work is very now, Tolkien's reaches back for the epics like Beowulf and the Jewish Bible.

[Verruckt]

my question is why one would even compare the two? The Harry Potter Books and Lord of the Rings fall into totally different categories of fantasy writing. It's like comparing the Starwars trilogy(ies) to 2001: A Space Odessy, sure they both involve spaceships, but the similarity ends there. And thats ok, Harry Potter is meant to be a relatively lighthearted and fast paced children's series, and by comparison LotR looks like a history textbook, but they aren't competing for the same audience, and it's just as pointless to argue the superiority of one over the other as it would be to debate the virtues of an apple as compared to a hammer. Personally, I prefer the Potter books, because they give one the opportunity to observe someone evolve as an author. The first book seems (and is) vapid when placed against the 7th, (my favorite) that's not something one gets the opportunity to see often.

...

whew, thats my 2 cp anyway :smallwink:

[Kosmopolite]

Tolkien, much like many 'classic' authors, isn't a particularly easy read. I read The Hobbit and loved it. Still do. I still find The Lord of the Rings a bit of a task, and haven't gotten around to rereading them. I know they're great literature, and important to the fantasy genre, but there are stories and characters who I prefer more. I can't really empathise with the characters in LOTR (book or movie). I just don't feel they're solidly drawn.

Not that I prefer Rowling. Her grammar is awful and story relatively derivative. I can't argue with anyone who's got more kids reading, though. The world is interesting enough, and the children's characters are well defined, and I don't mind the films, but I wouldn't devote the time to reread the first four or read the rest.

EDIT: Apple wins every time.

[The Extinguisher]

True, but I love a lot of older, 'classical' writers. Poe, Lovecraft, I even got through Les Miserables this summer.
Tolkien however is much to dry. It's like reading non-fiction books for a fictional world.

[kpenguin]

To be honest, I prefer C.S. Lewis over both Tolkein and Rowling, despite the Biblical metaphors. Although, I like Tolkein more and Lewis less as I grow older.

[Kosmopolite]

True, but I love a lot of older, 'classical' writers. Poe, Lovecraft, I even got through Les Miserables this summer.
Tolkien however is much to dry. It's like reading non-fiction books for a fictional world.

I'm not saying anything disparaging about classical authors as a whole, simply that many are, much like modern art, more about meaning than entertainment. That's why they're 'classics' much of the time.

[rubakhin]

Obviously they don't have the patience for a good read. In my strictly objective, unbiased in any way opinion, which in no way tries to degrade people with opinions different from mine, that is. :smallwink:


Pah. I couldn't make it through LoTR, and I read 800 page, centuries old books about the doings of the landed gentry for fun. I am a Russian scholar: I have great moral authority when it comes to dry prose. Great moral authority!

I did love The Hobbit, though.

[averagejoe]

True, but I love a lot of older, 'classical' writers. Poe, Lovecraft, I even got through Les Miserables this summer.
Tolkien however is much to dry. It's like reading non-fiction books for a fictional world.

:smallconfused: You got through the first seventy pages of Les Miserables, the entirety of which basically amounted to, "This bishop is a really great guy. Seriously," and the pages upon pages about the battle of Waterloo, and all that stuff about argot and the overly-romanticized nonsense that Hugo seemed to just love, and you think Tolkien is dry? (Don't get me wrong, I like Les Miserables, I just find Hugo to be, in some things, quite insufferable. It isn't unlike having an old and valued friend who insists on chattering on about how exciting trains are every time you get together. You wouldn't trade your time spent together for anything, but sometimes he just makes you want to jam a fork into your eyeball.) I mean, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm sure there must be some empirical test that could conclusively show that Hugo is much more boring than Tolkien.

I do, and always have, found Lord of the Rings to be a ripping good read every time. I always come to the end with a sense of, "What? It's over already?" Then again, I've found character/event-based narrative to be less and less enjoyable as time passes, so maybe that's just me.

[The Extinguisher]

Well, I did get down to the paragraph details over which stuff I could skip without consequence for Les Miserables. But so far, the best I've recieved for LotR was "You need to read it ALL". And I can't do that. Return of the King just puts me too sleep.

Meh. To each his own, I suppose.

[Semidi]

Well, I did get down to the paragraph details over which stuff I could skip without consequence for Les Miserables. But so far, the best I've recieved for LotR was "You need to read it ALL". And I can't do that. Return of the King just puts me too sleep.

Meh. To each his own, I suppose.

How about this with Lord of the Rings.

Skip all the songs, skip all the poetry, skip genealogies, skip anything that doesn't look like dialogue or a battle scene, and skip the pages talking about mountains and trees.

That's all I can think of right now. It has been a while since I read Lord of the Rings. I hope that helps. I actually found however, that Return of the King was the best of the lot because it had few of the things listed above.

The problem I had with Lord of the Rings, aside from the things listed, is that it reads more like a history book than a novel.

[Solo]

Pah. I couldn't make it through LoTR, and I read 800 page, centuries old books about the doings of the landed gentry for fun. I am a Russian scholar: I have great moral authority when it comes to dry prose. Great moral authority!


IN SOVIET RUSSIA, GREAT MORAL AUTHORITY AUTHORITATES OVER YOU!

[Tengu]

How about this with Lord of the Rings.

Skip all the songs, skip all the poetry, skip genealogies, skip anything that doesn't look like dialogue or a battle scene, and skip the pages talking about mountains and trees.


Shortest fantasy book ever!

[Eita]

You know, I hated book 7 at parts.

Especially when Voldemort marched out Harry's dead body and everyone was sad. I'd be like, "Okay... The prophecy is broken. We can kill him now."

You know, everything after Harry gets back to Hogwarts just seems like fanfiction.

I've read fanfiction that is better then what Rowling wrote.

[WNxHasoroth]

Hate the seventh book. I was expecting you know, Harry being a bad ass and killing people instead of being the pansy that he is now. Honestly its so sad. I can't believe it when people say JKR writes daring books. Its too damned lovey dovey and hippy like. Voldemort gets killed by love? Try the Sword of Gryffindor through his head, that'd be better.

/rant

[SmartAlec]

Well, the actor who played Gandalf was gay, too. I don't really see the big deal.

The big deal? Well, if we translate this into LotR, it's nothing to do with Ian McKellen being gay. It's more that Tolkien is claiming Gandalf is gay.

Which he ain't. Sorry, JRRT, but if you wanted him to be gay, you should have put some hints in the book. Otherwise... it's not in the book.

For all those who claim that the author should know, has anyone read Tolkien's Letters? The man changed his stance and opinion on many of the crucial events in the book quite a few times. If you take everything Tolkien's ever said or written about Middle-Earth as gospel, there's a hella lot of contradictions.

When did Rowling 'decide' that Dumbledore was gay? That's what I'd like to know. You'd have to go to serious lengths to convince me that the mention of Grindelwald in Philosopher's Stone was anything more than a throwaway reference.


Okay, really, did everyone really not realize that? That was my first question after reading Goblet of Fire.

Ok, I'm curious now. What was it in Goblet of Fire that tipped you off?

[Dhavaer]

Hate the seventh book. I was expecting you know, Harry being a bad ass and killing people instead of being the pansy that he is now. Honestly its so sad. I can't believe it when people say JKR writes daring books. Its too damned lovey dovey and hippy like. Voldemort gets killed by love? Try the Sword of Gryffindor through his head, that'd be better.

/rant

The essence of love is the Potterverse melts metal on contact. That's a pretty awesome power of love.

[Turcano]

Aren't we all, in the end? Fiction borrows from fiction, calling what you write fanfiction is just going out to say so explicitly.

This ignores a vast difference in scope. The "universal use of shared tropes and archetypes justifies my shameless plagiarism" defense doesn't work for Paolini, and it doesn't work for fanficcers.

This doesn't mean that fanfics are inherently bad work; it just means that it's writing-by-numbers and you're not doing yourself any favors by it.


And in fact, I find that fanfiction is a LOT harder to write than original fiction, largely due to the fact that you absolutely have to make people stay in character, rather than inventing stuff on the spot. This, in itself, is a challenge.

...

You... you've read fanfic, right?

[Artemician]

This ignores a vast difference in scope. The "universal use of shared tropes and archetypes justifies my shameless plagiarism" defense doesn't work for Paolini, and it doesn't work for fanficcers.

Frankly, I think that Paolini's a hack, for the very reason your quoted. While fanfiction may in fact, amount to the same thing, at least they have the grace to admit it upfront, which gets a big mental block out of the way.

It's like.. say.. a campy novel pretending to be deep, and fails utterly, versus a novel which knows that it's campy and makes the best out of it.


This doesn't mean that fanfics are inherently bad work; it just means that it's writing-by-numbers and you're not doing yourself any favors by it.

I don't really understand what you mean, could you like, put it in simpler words? :smallsmile:


You... you've read fanfic, right?

I read it from time to time, if it's good, just as I do with any other kind of fiction. So far, I find it's not that bad (comparing Fictionpress to Fanfiction.com isn't really that far-off).

[Turcano]

Frankly, I think that Paolini's a hack, for the very reason your quoted. While fanfiction may in fact, amount to the same thing, at least they have the grace to admit it upfront, which gets a big mental block out of the way.

It's like.. say.. a campy novel pretending to be deep, and fails utterly, versus a novel which knows that it's campy and makes the best out of it.

The main problem is that it's still technically intellectual property theft; many authors either don't mind or don't find it worth the bother to discourage it, but it's still legally shaky at best.


I don't really understand what you mean, could you like, put it in simpler words? :smallsmile:

Just in case you don't know, I was making an analogy to painting-by-numbers (you know, that pre-outlined picture with numbers that correspond to different colors, and you just fill in each outline with the proper color). In this case, a fanficcer starts out with predetermined characters and a predetermined setting and moves the elements around to personal taste. If you aspire to original writing, it can lead to some really bad habits.


I read it from time to time, if it's good, just as I do with any other kind of fiction. So far, I find it's not that bad (comparing Fictionpress to Fanfiction.com isn't really that far-off).

That probably explains it. You're mostly reading the exceptions; most fanficcers wouldn't know characterization if it bit them in the ass.

[Mc. Lovin']

"The House That Riddle Crashed At"
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/646335/1/

The title is derived from a similar Harry Potter chapter.

My god ...
That was terrible :smalleek:

[DomaDoma]

My god ...
That was terrible :smalleek:

Seconded, seconded, seconded. If you can't make something humorous and in-character at the same time, write skits instead.

You want a decent funny fanfic, I highly recommend Correspondence Course (http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/after_the_rain/CC01.html), where Remus and Sirius work for Kwikspell over the summer between sixth and seventh year.

[Gygaxphobia]

The problem with Harry Potter, as far as I see it, is that very few fans (that I have met) share your attitude. Most argue to the death about its literary merits; I can't count the times I have had to defend myself after saying I don't like Rowling. Personally, I enjoyed the first three or four, but kind of out grew them after that, and was left with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction after finishing. But to each his own I suppose.

Basically the same issues I have with Wheel of Time and it's fans. Bleurh.

[Pokemaster]

Dumbledore being gay is really just a continuation of Deathly Hallows' flaws. The book tied up a lot of things that were hinted at in previous books, but a lot of it just randomly came out of nowhere to ruin the story, like Snape's backstory and the hallows. The epilogue doesn't say anything relevant about what the characters did after the Hogwarts besides popping out babies, so now Rowling has to go around filling the blanks. I don't mind all that much, but this stuff really should've been in the books.

[Greebo]

As far as future books go, she's said she'll make an 'encyclopedia' of the world to follow up on what happened afterwards, but afaik, that's all.

[Netaria]

For everyone who can't understand why she revealed this tidbit of info:

She was at a signing/reading/Q&A session in NY and an 8 year old girl asked a direct question about Dumbledore's lovelife and if he had ever known love.

So, she didn't just randomly decide to make this a press announcement or something. She was asked, so she answered the question.

-

Personally, I think this is great. I love the fact that his being gay didn't matter in the books, that he was a person before he was a minority group. I think that adds much more credence to the character and to his representation of the reality of being a homosexual. Than having him act like some fruitcake and hitting on Snape ever would have. So, I say, go Jo go!

[Eita]

Basically the same issues I have with Wheel of Time and it's fans. Bleurh.

It got better... Book 11 was magnificent. Although yes, Jordan did get rather... detailed so to say.

[Solo]

It got better... Book 11 was magnificent. Although yes, Jordan did get rather... detailed so to say.

Anything to keep away from the kiddies?

[Eita]

Anything to keep away from the kiddies?

Excuse me? I do not understand your question. I believe that you mean that Jordan was trying to scare off his young readers. I shall answer accordingly.[/serious]

They just put a "RATED-M!" sticker on some of the later ones (not spoilered because, come on, if you care about the books, you know what happens in the snow :smallamused: ). After that episode, parents wouldn't buy the books.

[bugsysservant]

Basically the same issues I have with Wheel of Time and it's fans. Bleurh.

But...but I like WoT. :smallfrown:

Seriously though, I really believe that Jordan has really elevated the fantasy genre above the standard "hero's journey" archetype. I can see why someone might not like Robert Jordan, I myself put the series down for quite awhile, but I'm not going to insist that someone proclaim him as the high king of all literature.

Oh, and for a recent example of what I am talking about: I was talking with two friends today and I made a joke about dolphins and mice being far smarter than me. Neither got it, so I recommended they read Douglas Adams. They proceeded to say that they would read neither Terry Pratchett nor Douglas Adams, because the only English author they would read was J. K. Rowling. :smalleek: Robert Jordan may cultivate a devoted following, but nothing that could rival Rowling's.

[Green Bean]

Oh, and for a recent example of what I am talking about: I was talking with two friends today and I made a joke about dolphins and mice being far smarter than me. Neither got it, so I recommended they read Douglas Adams. They proceeded to say that they would read neither Terry Pratchett nor Douglas Adams, because the only English author they would read was J. K. Rowling. :smalleek: Robert Jordan may cultivate a devoted following, but nothing that could rival Rowling's.

As a fan of Pratchett, Adams, Rowling, and many other excellent British authors, that attitude greatly saddens me. :smallfrown:

[Seraph]

this whole issue puts an entirely weirder spin on Potter Puppet pals.

[USAgreco66kg]

Still, fangirls will still have rampant imaginations and desires that sometimes go WAY too far.

I had to look up the name of the Star Trek documentary, "Trekkies", in which a highly obsessed fangirl, who's declared herself a "Spiner-femme", rather than simply a "Trekkie" with an obsession over Brent Spiner (the actor who played "Data")

Went so far as drawing X-rated scenes of Data and Tasha Yar, and apparently she knows roughly where he lives, as she'll sit on her porch and look over the hill to where he lives and fantasizes about him. Keeps all of her Brent stuff in a earthquake/fire/burglar-proof safe.

Fangirls = nuts

[landadmiral]

I'd prefer it had never been mentioned to begin with. It was perfectly fine the way the books were written to begin with. They are supposed to be for kids anyways. This is not an issue kids should have to struggle with while trying to enjoy a book.

Rate M/R IS a good idea for homosexual topics in any material.

Now parents have to re-evaluate if the books are a problem.

-----------------


Personally, I think this is great. I love the fact that his being gay didn't matter in the books, that he was a person before he was a minority group. I think that adds much more credence to the character and to his representation of the reality of being a homosexual. Than having him act like some fruitcake and hitting on Snape ever would have. So, I say, go Jo go!

If it really didn't matter, then why bring it up? If we are to judge on content of character then being gay should never have been mentioned. Or does being gay affect someone's character?

If being gay does change character, then logically we open up the entire 'why gay is/isn't wrong on so many levels discussion'
hell, even darwinism and evolution is against homosexuality, but i digress.

I hate the fact that we've established a role model for all wizards to follow, THEN after its all said and done...JKR says by the way, your favored role model is gay. THAT is so wrong.

[Solo]

He had a hand in the death of his sister, wanted wizards to rule over muggles when he was younger, but his homosexualness bothers you the most?

[landadmiral]

He had a hand in the death of his sister, wanted wizards to rule over muggles when he was younger, but his homosexualness bothers you the most?

Uhhh...YEAH!

Like I said, this is not a topic children should be reading about. Granted, it's not apparent in the books, but what are parents to do when the author says...by the way, Dumbledore is gay.

i enjoy the books and the movies. they've been a way for me to get my wife more into the fantasy genre and be more forgiving on my d&d gaming. now, i've got to re-evaluate the entire situation.

i can picture it now, my child wants a slumber party for her birthday and i let them watch harry potter for an entertaining movie. one of the kids says, you know dumbledore is gay, now i've got to deal with explaining the whole gay situation to them, and they are watching dumbledore as an authoritative figure and a role model...on the basis of being gay.:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

so yes, i have a problem with it.

[Yuki Akuma]

How does having a homosexual character make something suitable for adults only?

[Solo]

Uhhh...YEAH!

Like I said, this is not a topic children should be reading about. Granted, it's not apparent in the books, but what are parents to do when the author says...by the way, Dumbledore is gay.

i enjoy the books and the movies. they've been a way for me to get my wife more into the fantasy genre and be more forgiving on my d&d gaming. now, i've got to re-evaluate the entire situation.

i can picture it now, my child wants a slumber party for her birthday and i let them watch harry potter for an entertaining movie. one of the kids says, you know dumbledore is gay, now i've got to deal with explaining the whole gay situation to them, and they are watching dumbledore as an authoritative figure and a role model...on the basis of being gay.:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

so yes, i have a problem with it.

Manslaughter and trying to enslave an entire race of people is better than homosexuality?

Says something.

[Setra]

i can picture it now, my child wants a slumber party for her birthday and i let them watch harry potter for an entertaining movie. one of the kids says, you know dumbledore is gay, now i've got to deal with explaining the whole gay situation to them, and they are watching dumbledore as an authoritative figure and a role model...on the basis of being gay.:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

so yes, i have a problem with it.
Pshh, that's a stupid reason to have a problem with it.

Do you really think children will be gay just because Dumbledore was/is? That's pathetic, and infuriates me, it's like saying people will go on a killing spree because they saw it in GTA.

I personally hope the children who see it like that will end up with a more open mind towards homosexuals, we all know they already receive enough crap from the last 500++ generations.

[landadmiral]

Manslaughter and trying to enslave an entire race of people is better than homosexuality?

Says something.

But Dumbledore redeemed himself and doesn't follow those ideals anymore now does he? So the point is moot because we are talking about the Dumbledore NOW not as a youth.


How does having a homosexual character make something suitable for adults only?

It's not about how, it's about when.
How about not even bringing up sexual issues and leaving them in the bedroom? Sex is not a topic for kids. Homosexuality is also not a topic for kids. I can't think of a single PG movie that features homosexuality in it's characters. PG-13 is when teenagers start watching movies and you'll find the topic there.
Teenagers yes - CHILDREN NO

[landadmiral]

I personally hope the children who see it like that will end up with a more open mind towards homosexuals, we all know they already receive enough crap from the last 500++ generations.

Open minded huh?

What do you mean by having an open mind? Lets have an open mind in exploring the rationality and worth of homosexuality.

1- Evolution: We evolved from the sea and continue to evolve based on mutations in the genetic code which permit the perpetuation of the species. Based from Darwin. Well, homosexuals can't procreate on thier own accord without deviating from the homosexual life style. So Evolution says homosexuality not of worth.

2- Natural Selection: Part of Evolution, also Darwin: Mutations occur in which the strong survive and the weak die off, permitting the stronger of the species to persist. Again, homosexuals can't perpetuate the mutation unless they ignore the mutation (have sex with someone of the opposite sex) thus the mutation is not of worth.

3- Societal history: While evidence of homosexual activity exists in history, it isn't what perpetuated society. The human race has persisted in a heterosexual family unit for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, each of the following major societies that promoted homosexuality have fallen: rome, athens, Lesbo, and Han. Additionally, every primitive tribe you can visit from South Africa to South America to Mongolia to the Eskimos have heterosexual societies. The eons of human societal existence proves homosexuality is of no worth.

4- Religion: christianity: God said let man cleave unto his wife and none other and together they shall twain be one flesh. those persisting in heterosexual behaviour were stoned to death. The act of homosexuality is sin (the sinner is loved, the act is not). Again, with religion, homosexuality is of no worth.

4a- Religion: Islam: Those practicing homosexuality are hung. See recent events in Iran. Homosexuality is of no worth.

I've explore it logically with all the above and with Financial industry, the Health industry, and the Family as a whole. There is only 1 scenario in which you could argue homosexuality is of worth and that is of personal choice aka opinion. And opinions are likes A$$es, everyone has one and it stinks.

I've spent time and explored scenarios about homosexuality and kept an open mind. All of which pointed to the same end result.

Homosexuality is of no worth. So why persist in permitting the damaging effects of homosexuality towards family, health, finances, religion, evolution, and society? I'm going to end by quoting what i said before b/c this is getting too political.


If it really didn't matter, then why bring it up? If we are to judge on content of character then being gay should never have been mentioned. Or does being gay affect someone's character?

If being gay does change character, then logically we open up the entire 'why gay is/isn't wrong on so many levels discussion'

[Netaria]

It's not about how, it's about when.
How about not even bringing up sexual issues and leaving them in the bedroom? Sex is not a topic for kids. Homosexuality is also not a topic for kids. I can't think of a single PG movie that features homosexuality in it's characters. PG-13 is when teenagers start watching movies and you'll find the topic there.
Teenagers yes - CHILDREN NO

I'd have to say that it's far more about love than simply sex. Especially when it's presented simply as, this is the way he is.

Does your child knowing you are married to your wife equate to an automatic x-rated thoughts about mommy and daddy to you? Why should knowing that the love of Dumbledore's life was Grindelvald be any different?

:furious:

[Aquillion]

Open minded huh?

What do you mean by having an open mind? Lets have an open mind in exploring the rationality and worth of homosexuality.

1- Evolution: We evolved from the sea and continue to evolve based on mutations in the genetic code which permit the perpetuation of the species. Based from Darwin. Well, homosexuals can't procreate on thier own accord without deviating from the homosexual life style. So Evolution says homosexuality not of worth.

2- Natural Selection: Part of Evolution, also Darwin: Mutations occur in which the strong survive and the weak die off, permitting the stronger of the species to persist. Again, homosexuals can't perpetuate the mutation unless they ignore the mutation (have sex with someone of the opposite sex) thus the mutation is not of worth.Evolution does not make value judgements. Issac Newton had no children. Stephen Hawking will never be able to have children. Alan Turing never had any children. Does that mean that these people are without value?

There are many ways people can contribute to the world without having children. Furthermore, gays can in fact have children, even without "deviating from the homosexual life style." Artifical insemination has been around for generations. It is now even possible, scientifically, to use the DNA from two women's eggs to produce a child without the genetic involvement of a man.


3- Societal history: While evidence of homosexual activity exists in history, it isn't what perpetuated society. The human race has persisted in a heterosexual family unit for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, each of the following major societies that promoted homosexuality have fallen: rome, athens, Lesbo, and Han. Additionally, every primitive tribe you can visit from South Africa to South America to Mongolia to the Eskimos have heterosexual societies. The eons of human societal existence proves homosexuality is of no worth.The Roman and Athenian societies were two of the most successful in the ancient world. Their ideas and philosophy have influenced almost everything that has come since in the West; nearly every major aspect of political, philosophical, and religious thought in western civilization today can be traced back to them.


4- ReligionReligions are essentially very loud, very old opinions; and, as you've said, opinions have no value in and of themselves. Lots of religions think that being gay is bad. Most of those same religions say (or said, until they were cleaned up very recently) that slavery was all right, and most of them thought, until recently, that the sun revolved around the earth. Those religions do not have a very good track record in terms of either morality or fact, and have shown (as when Christianity discretely edited out and glossed over the verses supporting slavery) that they are willing to adapt, morally, to the world around them.


I've explore it logically with all the above and with Financial industry, the Health industry, and the Family as a whole. There is only 1 scenario in which you could argue homosexuality is of worth and that is of personal choice aka opinion. And opinions are likes A$$es, everyone has one and it stinks.

I've spent time and explored scenarios about homosexuality and kept an open mind. All of which pointed to the same end result.

Homosexuality is of no worth. So why persist in permitting the damaging effects of homosexuality towards family, health, finances, religion, evolution, and society? I'm going to end by quoting what i said before b/c this is getting too political.Actually, I agree with you. Homosexuality is of no inherent worth. (or, in any case, very little--there is actually some anthropological evidence that it serves an important function in terms of population control, but that's neither here nor there.)

Guess what? Black (or white) skin is of very little inherent worth nowadays, too. Green eyes are of very little inherent worth. In fact, the vast majority of a person's inborn characteristics are of little or no inherent worth... they aren't important. It's the sum of the person, including who they love, that's important. To attack one inborn aspect of a person as wrong or sinful is to dismiss the sum of the person; to say that we cannot be told who a man loves in his inner heart because he is gay is to dismiss the man himself.

Alan Turing was a white, English, gay man who likely saved the entire free world. Did he save the world because he was gay? No. But to deny that, to try and cover it up or brush it into the shadows, is to say that Alan Turing was worth less because he was a gay man, and that is an absurd thing to say. It is comparable to saying that Martin Luther King was worth less because he was black, or that Issac Newton is worth less because he never had any children. It simply makes no sense.

[Solo]

But Dumbledore redeemed himself and doesn't follow those ideals anymore now does he? So the point is moot because we are talking about the Dumbledore NOW not as a youth.

How exactly do you redeem yourself from homosexuality?

If by redeem, you mean "not do it anymore", well, Dumbledore didn't have any relationships after Girdenwald, so...?



1- Evolution: We evolved from the sea and continue to evolve based on mutations in the genetic code which permit the perpetuation of the species. Based from Darwin. Well, homosexuals can't procreate on thier own accord without deviating from the homosexual life style. So Evolution says homosexuality not of worth.

I guess women who can't have children are not of worth either?



2- Natural Selection: Part of Evolution, also Darwin: Mutations occur in which the strong survive and the weak die off, permitting the stronger of the species to persist. Again, homosexuals can't perpetuate the mutation unless they ignore the mutation (have sex with someone of the opposite sex) thus the mutation is not of worth.

In nature, there are many species of animals (like monkeys) that will take a mate and kill off her children born to her previously by other males. This ensures that the fittest male only passes on his genes, and prevents his competitors from doing so.

Doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Evolution doesn't have jack to do with morality.


3- Societal history: While evidence of homosexual activity exists in history, it isn't what perpetuated society. The human race has persisted in a heterosexual family unit for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, each of the following major societies that promoted homosexuality have fallen: rome, athens, Lesbo, and Han.

WTF? The Han Dynasty didn't promote homosexuality, Rome and Greece endured and shone as beacons of civilization for centuries, and Lesbo was a bunch of women on an island.


4- Religion

My religion says it's ok. Flying spaghetti monster ftw!



Homosexuality is of no worth. So why persist in permitting the damaging effects of homosexuality towards family, health, finances, religion, evolution, and society? I'm going to end by quoting what i said before b/c this is getting too political.

Pure propaganda. Homosexuality in and of itself doesn't do what you say it does.

[landadmiral]

Love (aka sex) between Mommy and Daddy produced the children asking questions :smallbiggrin:


Why should knowing that the love of Dumbledore's life was Grindelvald be any different?

1- Dumbledore will never have such discussions with his children unless he explores venues outside of his mutation.
2- And the more accurate answer: The act of homosexuality is of no worth. Not in the books, not in the movies, not in life. JKR was correct in leaving it out altogether, but screwed up in saying so.

----

I would prefer not to even bring it up as an issue and leave it in the bedroom. straight or gay, it belongs in a bedroom.
But, i will not idly sit by as i read praises toward jkr for making it an issue. after thinking about the issue from various stand points, the act is of no redeeming qualities or of worth.
Green eyes, color of skin, not having children, doesn't change the conclusion that the act of homosexuality is damaging.

[Solo]

Love (aka sex) between Mommy and Daddy produced the children asking questions :smallbiggrin:



1- Dumbledore will never have such discussions with his children unless he explores venues outside of his mutation.
2- And the more accurate answer: The act of homosexuality is of no worth. Not in the books, not in the movies, not in life. JKR was correct in leaving it out altogether, but screwed up in saying so.

----

I would prefer not to even bring it up as an issue and leave it in the bedroom. straight or gay, it belongs in a bedroom.
But, i will not idly sit by as i read praises toward jkr for making it an issue.


Earlier, you when you said societies fell because of homosexuality, you mentioned Han.

If you refer to the Han dynasty, I must inform you that you are greatly mistaken. The Han dynasty fell due to many reasons, and homosexuality was not one of them.



1- Dumbledore will never have such discussions with his children unless he explores venues outside of his mutation.

Meh, a wizard did it.

[Jack Squat]

I sort of agree with landadmiral...the part about it not having any worth to the series.

I mean, so the mentor of the series liked a guy...does that really change the value of his teachings and advice? Dumbledore was a smart, revered man. What his preference was doesn't change that a bit; so why bring it up now that the series has ended?

[Aquillion]

Love (aka sex) between Mommy and Daddy produced the children asking questions :smallbiggrin:



1- Dumbledore will never have such discussions with his children unless he explores venues outside of his mutation.
2- And the more accurate answer: The act of homosexuality is of no worth. Not in the books, not in the movies, not in life. JKR was correct in leaving it out altogether, but screwed up in saying so.

----

I would prefer not to even bring it up as an issue and leave it in the bedroom. straight or gay, it belongs in a bedroom.
But, i will not idly sit by as i read praises toward jkr for making it an issue. after thinking about the issue from various stand points, the act is of no redeeming qualities or of worth.
Green eyes, color of skin, not having children, doesn't change the conclusion that the act of homosexuality is damaging.Damaging how? You still haven't answered that basic question. The only remotely coherent reason you provided (beyond 'my opinion says so') was that gays don't produce offspring (unless, of course, they decide to use artificial insemination.) They can also pass on their ideas and values through adoption, which can be just as important; or through numerous other ways. To use the fantasy example at hand, Dumbledore influenced hundreds of children through teaching. There is, in fact, a value to society in having people with no children, who instead devote themselves to educating others, adopting children who have no parents, and taking on other important tasks that they could be less able to do if they were distracted by children of their own

Beyond that, what is harmful about homosexuality that is not harmful about (say) green eyes or black skin?


I sort of agree with landadmiral...the part about it not having any worth to the series.

I mean, so the mentor of the series liked a guy...does that really change the value of his teachings and advice? Dumbledore was a smart, revered man. What his preference was doesn't change that a bit; so why bring it up now that the series has ended?This is a very different question. Regarding its worth to the series, it's important because it adds another layer of understanding to his relationship with Grindelwald. It makes their story into a tragedy, focusing on how they each felt that the other betrayed their love; it also adds a bit more meaning to Grindelwald's death (recall that he died trying to mislead Voldemort; his love for Dumbledore might have had something to do with that.) It also adds some meaning to the way Dumbledore was treated by the press (there were some hints in Rita's book that make more sense in light of this.)

[Catch]

The act of homosexuality is of no worth. Not in the books, not in the movies, not in life. JKR was correct in leaving it out altogether, but screwed up in saying so.

...

I would prefer not to even bring it up as an issue and leave it in the bedroom. straight or gay, it belongs in a bedroom.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment, pretty much on all counts. Homosexuality isn't an act, it's a lifestyle and I'm pretty sure that it has worth to anyone who is gay or has a relationship with someone who is gay. Dumbledore clearly loved Grindenwald; it was a powerful event in his life and contributed to many of his choices. Leaving out that he was gay cheapens the value of their relationship and of the story and reduces his feelings to a simple boyhood friendship. Knowing the truth about Dumbledore--clearly important in a tell-all book about his life--means all of the truth, not just the truth you're comfortable with. That you don't think it's important doesn't mean that no one else does.

Furthermore, homosexuality isn't a "bedroom" issue; both it and the story are centered around love. Dumbledore loved Grindenwald and whether or not they boinked is irrelevant. I certainly understand that explicit sex isn't appropriate in a novel intended for children but I don't think that homosexuality and explicit sex are mutually inclusive. JK can talk about who Dumbledore loved without ever touching his sex life.

[Wizzardman]

Love (aka sex) between Mommy and Daddy produced the children asking questions :smallbiggrin:



1- Dumbledore will never have such discussions with his children unless he explores venues outside of his mutation.
2- And the more accurate answer: The act of homosexuality is of no worth. Not in the books, not in the movies, not in life. JKR was correct in leaving it out altogether, but screwed up in saying so.

Green eyes, color of skin, not having children, doesn't change the conclusion that the act of homosexuality is damaging.

Yes, yes, yes, and following that logic, any romance that does not end in childbirth is inherently without use and is thereby damaging (somehow), and children are not supposed to be exposed to real world issues that may provoke complicated answers from their parents--unless of course those issues end in slaughter and destruction. Because, of course, it'll be so much better when the children encounter such things in real life (such as at school) without a parental explanation to back them up, and thereby with only the messages of their peers to guide them.

However, I suggest we all stop this part of the conversation before this thread gets locked and we all get b&.

Dumbledore is gay. Woohoo. This changes... absolutely nothing. I mean, she was kinda hinting at it throughout the last book.

[Fiery Justice]

One must realize, landadmiral, that if your children follow examples from harry potter they:
1. Torture their enemies and are justified. (last book)
2. Are encouraged to put their friendships over their convictions (first book)
3. Are taught that any kind of humility is posh (Harry's an arrogant tard, I'm sorry.)
4. Breaking the rules is okay, in fact its virtous, that silly hermione, telling people not to break the rules (first book forward, all the time, every time. Look at Fred and George. Are they ever disapproved of? By anybody but their doting mother, who is portrayed as an idiot?)

I liked the books, but their morality is such useless sh*t that looking back I wish I hadn't read them when I was as young as I was.

I've never met a sheltering of children that actually succeeded Land admiral, and I was homeschooled, so I sure as heck know the greatest efforts: Fail. Horribly.

Also, the whole gay topic is totally, totally banned.

[Ossian]

Dumb question: does this figure anywhere in the books? In the movies, until the Order of the Phoenix (last one I saw, haven't touched the books yet) it never shows.
Just honestly asking. I am asking becasue if it's just something she said during the interview, maybe made up or maybe in her notes ever since she thought of Albus, it was bit silly of her. It's not like it's an issue or not to be a homosexual. Point is, it's a story, and whatever does not affect the story, is a bit moot. Reminds me of George Lucas who keeps the fans at each other's throat by adding new contradictory bits of information, adding dozens of unnecessary layers of complexity to the already huge narrative continuum of Star Wars.

I am not saying that knowing whether Indiana Jones likes lasagne or if Clark Kent has the driving license is the same as stating that one of the major character ina world famous narrative cycle are the same things. But still, I can't help wondering whether JKR said so BECAUSE its's simply a controversial statement, likely to make 3ds like this one pop up everywhere and fuel for more weeks the popularity of the HP saga.

If Albus sexual orientation had a tangible effect on the storyline, it would have been worth it to stress it with at least a few pages, explaining WHY it mattered. Why explain it? Because it's not what you would expect. It's surprising, and perhaps the reader wants to understand the rationale behind such a narrative choice. Guess the movies would have been a bit harder to distribute then...

But anyway, even if Dumbledor was attracted by people of the same sex, even if that happened decades before the events described in the cycle, JKR should have included it IN the book. Dedicate a few interior monologue lines to that, at the very least, so if making thins explicit before the "characters" is a problem, at least the readers would let in on this apparently secret aspect of their principal.

Other writers, when they discussed thir books, they discuss a finished work. Tolkien says for examples that some characters in his works COULD have been merged into single ones, and other characters were simply the result of a single one split in two. Some battles, in his notes, went differently, and some weapons were in the hands of different heroes. But that does not change what is in the LOTR. A. Manzoni spoke extensively about his masterpiece "I promessi Sposi", and things changed many times in his mind and in his notes, before the FINAL version, but never ever changed a single dot in it, just like Dante, Verne and so on....

"Oh, and, by the way, forgot to tell you. In my "La Morte d'Arthur" Merlin the wizard is gay..."

Thomas Malory.

hmm.......:smallconfused:
O.

[landadmiral]

Also, the whole gay topic is totally, totally banned.

Then slap everyone with a ban, including those arguing for homosexuality, not just me who verbalizes against it

[Semidi]

Well in JKR defense (I never thought I'd write that) someone asked her who Dumbledore's sweetheart was, and she gave a direct response to that question. She didn't do a parade nor did she stress it overly much from what I read; someone asked a specific answer and she gave a specific response. I think that it wasn’t stressed in the books because as many people have said: it’s irrelevant to the plot.

[Solo]

oh, so the statistics showing the spread of STD's -mainly AIDS- within the homosexual community is propoganda? *damaging to health*

AIDs is spread by heterosexuals in Africa, isn't it? So it's not just homosexuals, is it?

Besides, homosexuality doesn't cause AIDs does it? I was under the impression it does not.

Saying homosexuals should be (banned? gotten rid of? discouraged?) because of AIDs is like saying we should do away with sex altogether because of STDs.


groups have followed that logic and now we have lawsuits to completely abolish marriage.

What are you talking about? In America? Pray link me to more information about lawsuits threatening to abolish marriage. I haven't heard of them before.



Land admiral, you still haven't explained to me how the Han dynasty collapsed as a result of homosexuality. Please do so.

I think I'll try to clear this point up first, as you mentioned it before the ones above.

So, how did the Han Dynasty collapse because of homosexuality?

[Ossian]

oh, so the statistics showing the spread of STD's -mainly AIDS- within the homosexual community is propoganda? *damaging to health*

Well, AIDS mostly kills people in Africa, as far as I know. Promiscuity alongside with zero or no information on the topic + catholic ban on the use of condoms and a continuous state of guerrilla with ravaging bands of armed gunmen raping left and right (and spreading the disease). Blood transfusions are a big factor too. Since homosexuality in the so called 1st world are a niche, before an ethero got AIDS from a homo he should also be so wicked unlucky to come across a bisex infected person. Again, AIDS owns AFrica and many areas in the pacific.


statistics show we are spending more money trying to cure AIDS than other diseases which kill MORE people - namely heart disease and cancer. AND the most powerful lobbyists promoting this spending are in fact homosexual lobbyists. *damaging to finances and health*

I truly believe in your good faith while you say that, still it would be nice to at least point at some kind of source. The incipit "statistics show clearly that...." has never really convinced me.


The episcopalian faith has split and gone apostate over the induction of a homosexual bishop. The catholic faith has a huge problem now that the archdiocese learned about a bishop giving homosexual transvestites communion in san fransisco...dressed as nuns. oh, and lawsuits have started to appear b/c clergy won't conduct homosexual weddings
*damaging to religion*

Don't worry, the clergy will survive (they always do. more resilient than bugs and bacteria). They survived schisms on stuff like "Is jesus christ a God or just a man?". I guess they'll figure out whether homosexuals can be married by bishops or not.


a family unit consists of 1 husband and 1 wife. children are the result of such family units. all persistent societies structure themselves to support these family units. rather, families are the basis of society. homosexuals cannot establish a persistent family unit. yeah yeah, what about a couple that can't produce kids? groups have followed that logic and now we have lawsuits to completely abolish marriage.
*damaging to society and family*

More damaging than this is the total lack of 'education' to married life. It's not like it's a walk in the park, and the ratio of divorce skyrocketing isn't to be blamed on a few homosexual marriages.
Anyway, it's probably a bit too early to panic. Fear not. Men are driven by base instincts. Sex is an issue, and always will be. We do not risk extintion...

O.

[Wizzardman]

oh, so the statistics showing the spread of STD's -mainly AIDS- within the homosexual community is propoganda? *damaging to health*

statistics show we are spending more money trying to cure AIDS than other diseases which kill MORE people - namely heart disease and cancer. AND the most powerful lobbyists promoting this spending are in fact homosexual lobbyists. *damaging to finances and health*

The episcopalian faith has split and gone apostate over the induction of a homosexual bishop. The catholic faith has a huge problem now that the archdiocese learned about a bishop giving homosexual transvestites communion in san fransisco...dressed as nuns. oh, and lawsuits have started to appear b/c clergy won't conduct homosexual weddings *damaging to religion*

a family unit consists of 1 husband and 1 wife. children are the result of such family units. all persistent societies structure themselves to support these family units. rather, families are the basis of society. homosexuals cannot establish a persistent family unit. yeah yeah, what about a couple that can't produce kids? groups have followed that logic and now we have lawsuits to completely abolish marriage. *damaging to society and family*

i guess evolution isn't damaged by homosexuality, the mutation will just die with the person...so yeah, this point was propoganda

Funny, I thought most of the STD epidemic has been caused by poor hygiene, lack of education on safe sex, and sex and gender changes in society at large. Funny how none of these are directly related to homosexuality. There may be a higher rate of STD problems in homosexual couples than in heterosexual couples, but this problem is not statistically significant; you cannot propose any direct correlation between homosexuality and presence of STDs, as you cannot yet account for random error (such as the cultural bias against homosexuals, fear from homosexuals about reporting themselves, and group demographics). Moreover, the highest rate of AIDs epidemic is located in Africa--and found most commonly between heterosexual couples who have not be given a proper education on STDs and how to prevent them.

Finally, your last statement is based more on current cultural difficulties regarding homosexuality, as the Western society you live in is in the process of changing its overall position on homosexuality. You can't blame homosexuals for cultural upheaval; you and your fellow citizens decided it was time for a change, and cultural upheaval is merely part of the process.

Additionally, family groups are actually a comparatively recent creation, and the nuclear family unit you refer to is not the only basis for human society. For instance, much of human society is based on the clan systems--where larger groups of related peoples band together for defense and community--yet I don't seem to see you living with your grandparents and second cousins.

[Fiery Justice]

You won't be banned for it if its your first offense to my understanding. But I agree, they should warn against such discussions of religion and politics (thats what it is) on this peaceful haven. This is my general understanding of the rules and former policy.

[Catch]

i guess evolution isn't damaged by homosexuality, the mutation will just die with the person...so yeah, this point was propoganda

Congratulations. You've mutilated this thread into a tirade of gay-bashing.

Now to prove you wrong.



oh, so the statistics showing the spread of STD's -mainly AIDS- within the homosexual community is propoganda?

Not anymore. AIDS is just as common in heterosexuals as in homosexuals. The "gay disease" perspective died in the 80's with parachute pants and the new Coke.



statistics show we are spending more money trying to cure AIDS than other diseases which kill MORE people - namely heart disease and cancer. AND the most powerful lobbyists promoting this spending are in fact homosexual lobbyists.

Gays are somehow responsible for the AIDS epidemic AND cancer AND heart disease? That's both bigoted AND unfounded.

Homosexual Lobbyists are the most powerful? Never mind the ones from the tobacco industry or fossil fuels.



The episcopalian faith has split and gone apostate over the induction of a homosexual bishop. The catholic faith has a huge problem now that the archdiocese learned about a bishop giving homosexual transvestites communion in san fransisco...dressed as nuns. oh, and lawsuits have started to appear b/c clergy won't conduct homosexual weddings *damaging to religion*

EDIT: On second thought, religion is a no-no on these boards.



a family unit consists of 1 husband and 1 wife. children are the result of such family units. all persistent societies structure themselves to support these family units. rather, families are the basis of society. homosexuals cannot establish a persistent family unit. yeah yeah, what about a couple that can't produce kids? groups have followed that logic and now we have lawsuits to completely abolish marriage. *damaging to society and family*

The standard family unit has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. Also, gay couples have irreversibly changed the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, women in the workforce or longer life spans. :smallamused:

[averagejoe]

Then slap everyone with a ban, including those arguing for homosexuality, not just me who verbalizes against it

Actually, I believe that it's specifically stated in the rules that an anti-homosexual stance isn't allowed. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember something like that.

[slapdash]

Ah, this thread has devolved into everything one could hope for and more!

[Catch]

Actually, I believe that it's specifically stated in the rules that an anti-homosexual stance isn't allowed. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember something like that.

Somewhat. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=24&a=1) Specifically:


Posting insults or slurs based on anyone's race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual orientation is a Permanent Infraction.

and:



Hate Speech
Particularly flagrant examples of insults or slurs based on anyone's race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual orientation, and especially any post advocating violence towards those of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation will result in an immediate ban.

It's up to a moderator to rule, though. Couldn't we just shift the conversation back to Dumbledore?

[Fiery Justice]

Only as it applies to individuals as I read in the rules, insulting any given individual for being gay would be against the rules, but a general stance against it (not saying anything about the character of the individual) would not be, as I understand it. HOWEVER! It is also strictly against the rules to discuss religion or politics, which have come up in every post involving the subject. I've looked up past cases and, as it happens, a anti-homosexual stance is allowed (But with the politics ban, this is meaningless, as talking about it pro or con is likewise banned.), whereas calling someone a ***, homo, or likewise is strictly not.

I'm basing this off a search for prior cases and my understanding of the rules, my reading may be too conservative or liberal.

Strictly speaking talking about say, Gaymers, or Dumbledore (going on precedence) is allowed, but the generalities of homosexuality are not.

All of this is based only off a few minutes research and may be completely and totally wrong. This is ultimately the mods choice, and I'm merely clarifying what I said earlier.

[averagejoe]

It's up to a moderator to rule, though. Couldn't we just shift the conversation back to Dumbledore?

Excellent suggestion, especially since it seems to be baiting more than anything else. I mean, really, ignoring such things is the best thing to do.

[Rogue 7]

I sort of agree with landadmiral...the part about it not having any worth to the series.

I mean, so the mentor of the series liked a guy...does that really change the value of his teachings and advice? Dumbledore was a smart, revered man. What his preference was doesn't change that a bit; so why bring it up now that the series has ended?

Merely because, I think, that's the way she envisioned the character. You're right to say that it doesn't matter, but she really brought it up because someone asked.

[Tyrael]

You never know sometimes. (http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r119/bridget1156/Gaara-trap.png)


OH GODS MY BRAIN!!! AAAAARGH IT BURNS!!

[turkishproverb]

It's not about how, it's about when.
How about not even bringing up sexual issues and leaving them in the bedroom? Sex is not a topic for kids. Homosexuality is also not a topic for kids. I can't think of a single PG movie that features homosexuality in it's characters. PG-13 is when teenagers start watching movies and you'll find the topic there.
Teenagers yes - CHILDREN NO

So then you must had a problem when Harry had his first kiss in the books? And you must have been HORRIFIED when ron and Hermoine kissed? No? Then WHY would it make a diffference if someone liked to kiss boys, as long as it doesn't deal with anything else, in terms of maturity as it relates to sexual content.





As to your...amusing... rant about Homosexuality, do you really want me to start digging up historical pro-homosexual groups that fell when becoming christian (Rome), the fact that non- "traditional" family groups have been shown to go almost as far back as "traditional" and homosexual pairings have been accepted in a wide veriaty of cultures? or the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't neccissarily apply the same way in a world of artificial inseminaiton?


Most societies that supported homosexuality and fell did so after becoming dogmatic and attacking homosexuality. IN the case of rome, major authors have BLAMED its fall on christianity for centuries.





How about the fact that your study of "religion" being against homosexuality is interpretive (some christain groups accept homosexuality, many Jewish groups do) scriptorally questionable (Many arguments against homosexuality in the bible could easily be applied to only specific situations, or other actions happening at the same time (such as it being the attempted rape of angels, and not homosexuality, that doomed that city)


What's worse, is that it is ethnocentric/geocentric. Many buddhist groups, several shinto groups, and many other smaller religous groups have historically been ok with Homosexuality. But of course, only the two WESTERN religions matter....


As to the "no worth" I find it funny how you fail to quantify some of the reasons. heres one worth: Population control. if 3-10 percent of the populatyion aren't going to reproduce by accident, than its less chance of unhappy children whom use up world resources.


Granted, thats a little cold, but its still more well thought out.



As to Dumbledore, honestly, I'm wondering if b saying this, Rawling isn't trying to garner mroe "serous" attention, as she's stated her next couple've works will be targed towards adults.

[Manticorkscrew]

Further corroboration, if any were needed, that (sadly) any discussion of anything related to homosexuality on a public forum will inevitably lead to a flamewar.

And I think we're done with the original topic, so:

Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! Godwin!

[Turcano]

Open minded huh?

What do you mean by having an open mind? Lets have an open mind in exploring the rationality and worth of homosexuality.

1- Evolution: We evolved from the sea and continue to evolve based on mutations in the genetic code which permit the perpetuation of the species. Based from Darwin. Well, homosexuals can't procreate on thier own accord without deviating from the homosexual life style. So Evolution says homosexuality not of worth.

2- Natural Selection: Part of Evolution, also Darwin: Mutations occur in which the strong survive and the weak die off, permitting the stronger of the species to persist. Again, homosexuals can't perpetuate the mutation unless they ignore the mutation (have sex with someone of the opposite sex) thus the mutation is not of worth.

This is not exactly the case. One can pass on genes without directly reproducing by helping out their blood relatives; ensuring the successful reproduction of more than two siblings (or eight first cousins) without direct reproduction is actually a net gain as far as genetic propagation is concerned. And this is not even considering the possibility of homosexuality as a spandrel (a side-effect) of a gene that is directly beneficial to direct reproduction.


3- Societal history: While evidence of homosexual activity exists in history, it isn't what perpetuated society. The human race has persisted in a heterosexual family unit for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, each of the following major societies that promoted homosexuality have fallen: rome, athens, Lesbo, and Han. Additionally, every primitive tribe you can visit from South Africa to South America to Mongolia to the Eskimos have heterosexual societies. The eons of human societal existence proves homosexuality is of no worth.

The variability of human sex roles is absolutely staggering. Many cultures allow polygyny, a smaller number of cultures allow polyandry. Some cultures see no problem with and even encourage marriage between cross cousins (the children of either your father's sister or your mother's brother), yet see marriage between parallel cousins, who are exactly as genetically related to you, is as bad as marrying your sister. There are several examples of same-sex marriage, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Homosexuality is an integral part of some military subcultures, such as the Spartans or the Samurai. And this may be hard to believe, but there are some cultures out there that view heterosexuality as the icky sexual orientation.


4- Religion: christianity: God said let man cleave unto his wife and none other and together they shall twain be one flesh. those persisting in heterosexual behaviour were stoned to death. The act of homosexuality is sin (the sinner is loved, the act is not). Again, with religion, homosexuality is of no worth.

I feel that I must disclose that I am a Christian, so what I am about to say carries no religious bias. I have a real beef with the phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner," as I've never heard it used except as an excuse to treat someone in an unloving manner. I also believe firmly in the the wall of separation between church and state, which is a relationship that is ultimately beneficial for both parties concerned.


4a- Religion: Islam: Those practicing homosexuality are hung. See recent events in Iran. Homosexuality is of no worth.

This is an example of variability in sex roles; most Islamic societies share Anne McCaffrey's conception of homosexuality (i.e., you're not gay unless you take it up the backside).


I've explore it logically with all the above and with Financial industry, the Health industry, and the Family as a whole. There is only 1 scenario in which you could argue homosexuality is of worth and that is of personal choice aka opinion. And opinions are likes A$$es, everyone has one and it stinks.

I've spent time and explored scenarios about homosexuality and kept an open mind. All of which pointed to the same end result.

Homosexuality is of no worth. So why persist in permitting the damaging effects of homosexuality towards family, health, finances, religion, evolution, and society? I'm going to end by quoting what i said before b/c this is getting too political.

You have declared that homosexuality has negative effects on society, but you don't present any evidence for it. Homosexuals are fully functional members of society, and have been a tremendous blessing in some areas (e.g., the theater).

Also, do not take this personally. I understand why people can have such opinions; I regret to admit it, but I held them myself once upon a time.

Edit: As punishment for derailing this thread further, I will contribute to the discussion by posting a song from Avenue Q:


ROD
Aah, an afternoon alone with
My favorite book, "Broadway
Musicals of the 1940s."
No roommate to bother me.
How could it get any better than this?

NICKY
Oh,hi Rod!

ROD
Hi Nicky.

NICKY
Hey Rod, you'll never
Guess what happened to
Me on the subway this morning.
This guy was smiling at me and talking to me

ROD
That's very interesting.

NICKY
He was being real friendly,
And I think he was coming on to me.
I think he might've thought I was gay!

ROD
Ahem, so, uh, why are you telling me this?
Why should I care?
I don't care.
What did you have for lunch today?

NICKY
Oh, you don't have to get
All defensive about it, Rod...

ROD
I'm NOT getting defensive!
What do I care about some gay guy you met, okay?
I'm trying to read.

NICKY
Oh, I didn't mean anything by it, Rod.
I just think it's something we should be able to talk about.

ROD
I don't want to talk about it,
Nicky! This conversation is over!!!

NICKY
Yeah, but...

ROD
OVER!!!

NICKY
Well, okay, but just so you know —
IF YOU WERE GAY
THAT'D BE OKAY.
I MEAN 'CAUSE, HEY,
I'D LIKE YOU ANYWAY.
BECAUSE YOU SEE,
IF IT WERE ME,
I WOULD FEEL FREE
TO SAY THAT I WAS GAY
(BUT I'M NOT GAY.)

ROD
Nicky, please!
I am trying to read....
What?!

NICKY
IF YOU WERE QUEER

ROD
Ah, Nicky!

NICKY
I'D STILL BE HERE,

ROD
Nicky, I'm trying to read this book.

NICKY
YEAR AFTER YEAR

ROD
Nicky!

NICKY
BECAUSE YOU'RE DEAR
TO ME,

ROD
Argh!

NICKY
AND I KNOW THAT YOU

ROD
What?

NICKY
WOULD ACCEPT ME TOO,

ROD
I would?

NICKY
IF I TOLD YOU TODAY,
"HEY! GUESS WHAT,
I'M GAY!"
(BUT I'M NOT GAY.)
I'M HAPPY
JUST BEING WITH YOU.

ROD
High Button Shoes, Pal Joey...

NICKY
SO WHAT SHOULD IT
MATTER TO ME
WHAT YOU DO IN BED
WITH GUYS?

ROD
Nicky, that's GROSS!

NICKY
No it's not!
IF YOU WERE GAY
I'D SHOUT HOORAY!

ROD
I am not listening!

NICKY
AND HERE I'D STAY,

ROD
La la la la la!

NICKY
BUT I WOULDN'T GET
IN YOUR WAY.

ROD
Aaaah!

NICKY
YOU CAN COUNT ON ME
TO ALWAYS BE
BESIDE YOU EVERY DAY,
TO TELL YOU IT'S OKAY,
YOU WERE JUST BORN
THAT WAY,
AND, AS THEY SAY,
IT'S IN YOUR DNA,
YOU'RE GAY!

ROD
BUT I'M NOT GAY!

NICKY
If you were gay.

ROD
Argh!

[landadmiral]

I said it once and I'll say it again.

I'd prefer gay had never been mentioned to begin with. It was perfectly fine the way the books were written. They are supposed to be for kids anyways. This is not an issue kids should have to struggle with while trying to enjoy a book or movie.

Again, rate M/R IS a good idea for homosexual topics in any material.

Now parents have to re-evaluate if the books are a problem...again. The first time was whether or not they were promoting witch-craft.

Any responsible parent will monitor the material thier children view/read and restrict inappropriate items. As is, I'll let my kids watch the first couple Harry Potter movies but the last 2 are not child appropriate. Very dark. Now we slap on the gay issue. :smallfurious: wonderful :smallfurious:

-----------------

If dumbledore being gay really didn't matter, then why bring it up? If we are to judge on content of character then being gay should never have been mentioned. Or does being gay affect someone's character? Which not only baited us into politics but...brought the onslaught of pro-gay posts flaming me (no pun). Fine. Doesn't put me in the wrong - especially where children are concerned.

I hate the fact that we've established a role model for all wizards to follow, THEN after its all said and done...JKR says - by the way, your favored role model is gay.
Despite jkr's motivation, it is not right.

[Catch]

If dumbledore being gay really didn't matter, then why bring it up? If we are to judge on content of character then being gay should never have been mentioned. Or does being gay affect someone's character? Which not only baited us into politics but...brought the onslaught of pro-gay posts flaming me (no pun). Fine. Doesn't put me in the wrong - especially where children are concerned.

I hate the fact that we've established a role model for all wizards to follow, THEN after its all said and done...JKR says - by the way, your favored role model is gay.
Despite jkr's motivation, it is not right.

It does matter that he's gay, very much so. Dumbledore's love for Grindewald was a very important event in his life and a major influence for his choices. Furthermore, understanding the significance of their relationship makes the decision Dumbledore had to make in battling Grindenwald all the more powerful and moving. In a book about understanding Dumbledore, omitting his love is omitting a very important facet of his life. He wasn't a better or worse person because he was gay but to understand him is to know.

Secondly, please don't throw up the "think of the children" defense, either. Homosexuality, especially in this case, isn't necessarily about sex. No one is being hurt or emotionally damaged by this, not any more than all the character deaths. Homosexuality doesn't make someone less of a role model, not at all, and a large part of Dumbledore's character is that of someone who does not follow the norm. By living as he saw fit, flaws, mistakes and all his wisdom, Dumbledore is both a very human character and a very admirable person. I have no qualms about Dumbledore as a role model because it's okay to be gay. He made some poor choices as a youth, some particularly reprehensible, but being gay is not one of them because homosexuality is not a choice.

You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but Dumbledore lived and loved just like anyone else. It's something the readers deserve and want to know. When a little girl asked JK Rowling if Dumbledore found true love, she was told the truth. Had Grindenwald been a woman, I'd reckon we wouldn't be having this argument and that irritates me significantly.

[Wizzardman]

I hate the fact that we've established a role model for all wizards to follow, THEN after its all said and done...JKR says - by the way, your favored role model is gay.
Despite jkr's motivation, it is not right.

Well, I hate to say it, but there were a lot of hints in the seventh book that Dumbledore was gay. Not enough to make it necessarily true, but certainly enough to support such a claim. She only really brought it up because a young fan asked a question about it; after all, in this case, the 'gay issue' as you put it is only important in the way that it influences the character. In this case, it influenced Dumbledore by hiding how evil Grindelwald really was--people of even Dumbledore's intelligence often misjudge those they fall in love with.

And I doubt she's that worried about controversy; she's already extremely wealthy because of the success of the Harry Potter series, and I doubt many of the Harry Potter fans will be put out because of this. She's withstood other, similar controversies before. Honestly, bringing up the witchcraft controversy is a poor idea on this forum; the suggestion that bad latin can lead to supernatural danger is only a few steps away from the idea that rules about 'd6-filled fireballs' and 'spells per day' will do the same.

Additionally, I've never really seen Dumbledore as much of a role model. I mean, I accept that he's a father figure, but the 'role models' provided are Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Kids won't identify with Dumbledore; they'll identify with the kids of the series.

And even despite that, book seven was about identifying the 'flaws' of Dumbledore; while I personally wouldn't count homosexuality as one of them, you are welcome to hold that as your own opinion, if you so wish. Again, personally, I would have identified arrogance, dehumanizing his fellow human beings, and the urge towards conquest as the flaws revealed. All trolls aside, you are welcome to hold your own opinion.


...Quote for today: "They brought a cave troll!"

[Fiery Justice]

I do believe that, saying someone has, "Extreme and irrational hatred" of anything qualifies as a flame. He's clearly religious, like me, and strongly opinionated, like me, I'm just more devoted to keeping my mouth shut. There have been numerous implicit insults, you simply don't see them because you agree with them. A lot of the things people have said are forcing me to restrain my clergyman impulses every step of the way. (Including a few statements of landadmiral.)


Religions are essentially very loud, very old opinions; and, as you've said, opinions have no value in and of themselves. Lots of religions think that being gay is bad. Most of those same religions say (or said, until they were cleaned up very recently) that slavery was all right, and most of them thought, until recently, that the sun revolved around the earth. Those religions do not have a very good track record in terms of either morality or fact, and have shown (as when Christianity discretely edited out and glossed over the verses supporting slavery) that they are willing to adapt, morally, to the world around them.
We did no such thing as edit them out. I am a firm believer in the moral allow ability of slavery. I'd quote the scriptures if I felt like it. I'm a moral fundamentalist though. But saying we editted our scriptures, is offensive. If you say that, you imply we are hypocrites and liars and the church is a dead entity with no power to resist the opinions of common man and uphold the truths of God. But thats not even the worst part, "Those religions do not have a very good track record in terms of morality or fact," is downright, out and out, insulting. No one can pretend its not (no, not even if you think its true).

I'd go through the rest of Aquillions posts and dismantle them, but I really only have the patience for this single one.

Also the whole :smallfurious: was just a bad idea in the first place. I'd recommend they remove it, as it does no one any service whatsoever and allows people to flame others without saying anything.


Congratulations. You've mutilated this thread into a tirade of gay-bashing.
Is also thoroughly not cool, Catch.

A lot of other things said are upsetting, very upsetting, to me and (doubtless) him, but they aren't actually flames. Their just really, really, irritating, and thats no excuse.

[Solo]

I am a firm believer in the moral allow ability of slavery.

What does that mean?

[Catch]

What does that mean?

That we're getting off-topic again. Also, religion.

So, back to Dumbledore...

[Fiery Justice]

What does that mean?

Its not immoral, but I don't like it.

[Green Bean]

That we're getting off-topic again. Also, religion.

So, back to Dumbledore...

Good idea.

You know, this revelation would also give an indication of what Dumbledore actually saw in the Mirror of Erised in the first book. Socks my butt! :smalltongue:

[Catch]

You know, this revelation would also give an indication of what Dumbledore actually saw in the Mirror of Erised in the first book. Socks my butt! :smalltongue:

You know, I remember reading something like that in the Deathly Hallows, that Dumbledore lied when Harry asked him about what he saw. My guess would be that he saw himself with Grindenwald and his brother & sister. Maybe a whole family; Albus seemed like an awfully lonely guy.

[Green Bean]

You know, I remember reading something like that in the Deathly Hallows, that Dumbledore lied when Harry asked him about what he saw. My guess would be that he saw himself with Grindenwald and his brother & sister. Maybe a whole family; Albus seemed like an awfully lonely guy.

You have a point there. He had the respect of pretty much everyone, even Voldemort in a twisted "you're the only real threat to me" kind of way, but no one ever really got close to him in the novels. Heck, Harry, who arguably spent the most time with him of any of the characters, barely knew him until the seventh book.

[Fiery Justice]

J.K. Rowling stated that he saw what Harry sees. His family happy, well, and all getting along.

[Catch]

J.K. Rowling stated that he saw what Harry sees. His family happy, well, and all getting along.

Not that I don't believe you, but when did she say that?

Also, thanks for ruining the magic. I was having fun with mah 'magination. :smalltongue:

[Green Bean]

J.K. Rowling stated that he saw what Harry sees. His family happy, well, and all getting along.

I assume you mean his own family, right? As selfless as he is, I don't think that his greatest, most secret desire, is for Harry's family to be okay.

[Fiery Justice]

Yes, Dumbledore sees his own family

And here we go: http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=3&sec2=1

Allie: What did Dumbledore truly see in the mirror of erised?

J.K. Rowling: He saw his family alive, whole and happy — Ariana, Percival and Kendra all returned to him, and Aberforth reconciled to him.

[Solo]

Not that I don't believe you, but when did she say that?

Also, thanks for ruining the magic. I was having fun with mah 'magination. :smalltongue:

AAAAARRGH!

[landadmiral]

Fiery Justice would be correct about the flames - not happening but there are undertones and severe feelings associated with the recent posts - mine included.


I notice that you seem to have a severe overreaction to this issue, and an extreme and irrational dislike of homosexuals.

Am I correct, or have I misjudged you?

I shouldn't have to go into the list of gays that i work with -she and i talk and joke about it all the time-, GAME WITH, was room-mates with, and associate with. it doesn't matter. i don't hate them, but ALL of them will tell you that i'm against the coming out of the closet movement and the social movement associated with it which attacks the fundamentals upon which i was raised with. i find this movement offensive, disgusting, and irreverent of traditional values. i caution you before clicking on this example link. (http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/photo/2007/092507FolosomFull.jpg)

When challenged by my gay associates, I just pull up a couple recent links or stories that are blatant social movements challenging wholesome family values, they agree with me. its too obvious.
now, we usually don't talk about it anymore because i can provide recent news stories supporting my claims and just talk about common interests (gaming, work, whatever). i'm just not going to do it on the boards anymore without warning and attempt to stay away from getting political
<-- notice my infractions

I know I'm over-reacting at this point because jkr saying dumbledore being gay is nothing compared to the link above. I'm just charged from standing my ground and not putting up with praises towards her. I mean, why should she get any praise for even making it an issue? is her literary work now a masterpiece because that piece was now in play?
When I first heard it I said in disbelief "you're kidding me?!" Then rolled my eyes when it was confirmed.
Great. Another slice of family values is thrown to the swine. Sure, it was a little slice, but we still lose in the end. And for what cause? what end?

[Solo]

I don't think you're supposed to link whatever it is you're linking.

Glad you calmed down by the way. You're much easier to talk to this way.

[Green Bean]

Yes, Dumbledore sees his own family

And here we go: http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=3&sec2=1

Sweet interview; I hadn't read that yet. It had some interesting things, like the shape of Dumbledore's boggart (his dead sister). You have to wonder, though, how one would make that funny...

[Fiery Justice]

Yeah, some of the boggarts I was just like, "Screw it" I mean how did Molly do it when she saw dead ron? Seriously, ****ing horrible monster the Boggart.

[Netaria]

I said it once and I'll say it again.

I'd prefer gay had never been mentioned to begin with. It was perfectly fine the way the books were written. They are supposed to be for kids anyways. This is not an issue kids should have to struggle with while trying to enjoy a book or movie. Has it struck you that homosexuals don't appear as fully formed adults out of thin air and that they are instead, born as babies and thus are children themselves at some point? The fact that for these children to see a character who is a positive role model who is a homosexual is a good, nay, great thing?

[Green Bean]

Yeah, some of the boggarts I was just like, "Screw it" I mean how did Molly do it when she saw dead ron? Seriously, ****ing horrible monster the Boggart.

That's true. I guess once you learn more advanced spells, you can use those for the images you just can't make funny. Who needs laughter when you can send a Stunner up their tailpipe? Of course, the tricky part would be being able to concentrate on the spell; the really horrific shapes certainly wouldn't make it easy.

[Fiery Justice]

Has it struck you that homosexuals don't appear as fully formed adults out of thin air and that they are instead, born as babies and thus are children themselves at some point? The fact that for these children to see a character who is a positive role model who is a homosexual is a good, nay, great thing?

Maintaining your morality through a torrent of public opinion is hard to do, and we'd prefer our children not have to have that kind of moral fiber off the bat. As it happens, our morality encompasses certain unpopular statements.

[Rutee]

Maintaining your morality through a torrent of public opinion is hard to do, and we'd prefer our children not have to have that kind of moral fiber off the bat. As it happens, our morality encompasses certain unpopular statements.Please tell me I'm misreading this and you're not saying homosexuality is immoral, are you? -.-

As to the original topic..

The part that bothers me is that this couldn't be done before the books had sold. It makes more of a statement when you do it before you've made your money, when the most that can happen is that the Moral Guardians can be angry at you, when they were probably mad at you for the same books anyway.

Plus, he fulfilled the "Dead homosexual" cliche >.>

[Fiery Justice]

Its best if we not derail this thread, its already pretty lock worthy. I don't lie, and I'll leave it at that.

[Netaria]

Maintaining your morality through a torrent of public opinion is hard to do, and we'd prefer our children not have to have that kind of moral fiber off the bat. As it happens, our morality encompasses certain unpopular statements.

It isn't a question of morality for those children who are homosexual, it's just reality. People don't just "decide" whether or not they feel it's moral to be gay or not. You either are or you aren't and no amount of morality based opinions can change it in either direction.

Straights who see gays as no different from any other person on the face of the planet do not suddenly become gay because they do not morally object to it. Gays cannot become straight no matter how strongly they believe there is something wrong with themselves.

[Reel On, Love]

Fiery Justice would be correct about the flames - not happening but there are undertones and severe feelings associated with the recent posts - mine included.

I shouldn't have to go into the list of gays that i work with -she and i talk and joke about it all the time-, GAME WITH, was room-mates with, and associate with. it doesn't matter. i don't hate them, but ALL of them will tell you that i'm against the coming out of the closet movement and the social movement associated with it which attacks the fundamentals upon which i was raised with. i find this movement offensive, disgusting, and irreverent of traditional values. i caution you before clicking on this example link. (http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/photo/2007/092507FolosomFull.jpg)
And some people find your "traditional values" to be offensive, disgusting, and irreverent of their values.

Oh no! Men in leather! Men without shirts! How horrible!
Here's the thing: if you have bigoted values, they are going to be offended in our society. That's a good thing.


When challenged by my gay associates, I just pull up a couple recent links or stories that are blatant social movements challenging wholesome family values, they agree with me. its too obvious.
now, we usually don't talk about it anymore because i can provide recent news stories supporting my claims and just talk about common interests (gaming, work, whatever). i'm just not going to do it on the boards anymore without warning and attempt to stay away from getting political
<-- notice my infractions
If your "wholesome family values" include teaching your kids that people who love--or just have sex with--other people of the same gender are bad, wrong, etc, well, they ain't exactly as wholesome as you think they are.


I know I'm over-reacting at this point because jkr saying dumbledore being gay is nothing compared to the link above. I'm just charged from standing my ground and not putting up with praises towards her. I mean, why should she get any praise for even making it an issue? is her literary work now a masterpiece because that piece was now in play?
When I first heard it I said in disbelief "you're kidding me?!" Then rolled my eyes when it was confirmed.
Great. Another slice of family values is thrown to the swine. Sure, it was a little slice, but we still lose in the end. And for what cause? what end?
For the end of people realizing that, hey--it's not actually a big deal.
She should get praise because young gay kids often grow up without seeing anyone like them depicted, much less in a positive fashion. I'm not even talking about role models: I'm talking about the "oh god what's wrong with me" phase. Dumledore is gay? Great. Here's why: some people are gay. It's usually incidental. Dumbledore's a good person who just so happens to be gay. He's not Gay-O, the Gay Homosexual. He just happens to go for men. Just like you, Johnny Pubescent, might find yourself attracted to men, and that's okay. It doesn't change who you are.

You know what the lack of that sort of thing leads? You know what the lack of gay role models, social inacceptance of homosexuality (at least as something that kids and/or teenagers should know/be told about) does? It leads to depression. It leads to a far higher rate of suicide among gay teenagers: in other words, it quite literally harms and kills people.



Maintaining your morality through a torrent of public opinion is hard to do, and we'd prefer our children not have to have that kind of moral fiber off the bat. As it happens, our morality encompasses certain unpopular statements.
What this basically amounts to is "brainwashing our children to have exactly the same ethics we do is more important than the quality of life--or loss of life, see above--of young gay people."
And you know something? That's not okay. That's not ethical or good. That sort of bigotry is wrong. Immoral. Shameful.

I don't care what your "moral fiber" is, keep it to yourself. If your ethical system teaches you that homosexuality is Badwrong, you have (perhaps unfortunately) the right to do your best to instill that opinion in your kids (which is fortunately getting harder and harder; by the time the next generation is voting, I really doubt gay marriage, for example, will be a contested issue... just like interracial marriage isn't a contested issue anymore). You shouldn't expect to have society keep mirroring that opinion.

Hey, you know what else? Dumbledore isn't just gay, he doesn't subscribe to your ethical system, either (something which most religions consider Badwrong as well). Shouldn't that be a more important issue, or do you realize that people of other religions, or who are areligious, can be good people? And that it's good to have them depicted that way in popular culture? And if so, why don't you recognize the same about homosexuals?


You can disagree with her thesis all you want, but if you have to fall back on the patently ridiculous "sexual orientation is a choice!" position, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's impossible to maintain that belief in the face of rational thought. Here's something to chew on: if sexual orientation were a choice, I would be bisexual. I would very much prefer it to heterosexuality. But you know what? I've kissed guys. It's kind of weird (and scratchy) and it does absolutely nothing for me. Naked men in an erotic context don't arouse me (studies do show, however, that gay pornography causes arousal in homophobic men but not regular heterosexual men). And there's nothing I can do to change that. If sexual orientation is a choice, why can't I seem to make mine? Why can't so many gay kids--who don't WANT to be gay, who are outcast, teased, degraded, and beaten up for it, who stand the risk of being killed for it (see Mathew Shepard... or other, more recent cases)--choose otherwise, no matter how much they'd like to?

Comparing homosexuality to murderous sociopathy is roughly the equivalent of saying "you support [some regulation]? You NAZI!" Homosexuality doesn't harm other people.

[Fiery Justice]

I disagree, it is an issue of morality, even if natural. A murdering sociopath not excused from his crimes because of his sociopathy, he is still a murderer. I also disagree with the thesis that people don't choose what their attracted to. But this is not the time nor the place, as I am continually reminding myself. IF you'd like to have this discussion via PM, I'll gladly continue, but not here, on this thread.

This is aimed at Netaria. The above poster will be adressed in a sec. On second thought, I will simply wait for a moderator to deal with the above individual, and suggest Landadmiral do the same.

[Reel On, Love]

The above poster will be adressed in a sec. On second thought, I will simply wait for a moderator to deal with the above individual, and suggest Landadmiral do the same.

Let me get this straight: if you suggest homosexuality is unethical and shouldn't be something kids are taught about (no matter how much good that does--I presume you see saving people's lives as good)... that's okay.
If I suggest that the above "ethic" is unethical... that's worthy of moderation.
Anything to maintain your worldview, I guess.

[Cryopyre]

I disagree, it is an issue of morality, even if natural. A murdering sociopath not excused from his crimes because of his sociopathy, he is still a murderer. I also disagree with the thesis that people don't choose what their attracted to.

The first argument has a victim, the second has scientific data, and even has a pinpointed gene, leading to the confirmation of homosexuality being inherited.

On the subject however. I must say that I agree with above posters. I don't think that saying Dumbledore was gay is in any way "valiant." The window of opportunity for valiance has ended. She chose money over political movement, not that either one is better than the other, but you can only, really, have one.

[Reel On, Love]

JKR is British. Homosexuality is far less of a big deal over there. If she says it didn't even occur to her to mention it, I buy that.

Was it "valiant"? No, and it wasn't meant to be. Was it a good thing anyway? Yes.

[Fiery Justice]

I think friend, that your post is designed to incite anger, that I would not be able to deal with pre-stated incitation, and I will wait for the moderators to judge your opinion, as I think it is clearly derogatory and insulting.

Its not that I don't think that children should be taught about gay people, its merely that I do not think being gay is right. I am afraid that some people cannot keep their morality straight and push around and make fun of people who do a wrong thing is not something I can help, that does make the wrong thing. If someone beat you up for cheating on his sister, that would be wrong. You still cheated on his sister, and are responsible for that action.

Its not the christian way to make excuses, for myself, or for anyone else.

[Solo]

Oh no! Men in leather! Men without shirts! How horrible!

You've got to be kidding me. The Folsom street fair? Here I was thinking it was a link to something horrible, and it turns out to be a bunch of guys in leather and makeup?

Biggest anticlimax ever.

[Fiery Justice]

The first argument has a victim, the second has scientific data, and even has a pinpointed gene, leading to the confirmation of homosexuality being inherited.
If you would like to continue this discussion in private, by PM, I will gladly oblige, but this thread is not the place for it. I disagree with you for various reasons that I am in fact eager to explain, but I can't do it here, as its not allowed.

[Reel On, Love]

I think friend, that your post is designed to incite anger, that I would not be able to deal with pre-stated incitation, and I will wait for the moderators to judge your opinion, as I think it is clearly derogatory and insulting.
My post isn't designed to incite anger. I'd be insulting you and your religion if it was. I do think that your worldview, in this respect, is unethical. If it's OK for you to say that about homosexuality, why is it not OK for me to say that about your opinion?


Its not that I don't think that children should be taught about gay people, its merely that I do not think being gay is right.
Great. I don't think being a member of [political, religious, or social] group X is right. That doesn't mean that I need to do my best to make sure my kids have the same opinion I do, and it doesn't mean I need to be upset by a member of group X being depicted in a positive light in pop culture.


I am afraid that some people cannot keep their morality straight and push around and make fun of people who do a wrong thing is not something I can help, that does make the wrong thing. If someone beat you up for cheating on his sister, that would be wrong. You still cheated on his sister, and are responsible for that action.

Its not the christian way to make excuses, for myself, or for anyone else.
The thing is--YES, it is something you can help. Going on about how Homosexuality Is Bad actively contributes to the problems and behaviors in question. Being opposed to the positive depiction of homosexual characters actively contributes to those problems and expressions.

You don't "merely" think being gay is wrong. You try to infuse your kids with that view, and you try to make sure they don't get outside information that tells them different. Without actually getting politics into this, I bet this affects what you vote for (regardless of the fact that the law does *not* exist to support, maintain, and/or validate your particular system of ethics). What you do is not limited to your judgement of a harmless act, and that's why it arouses ire.

[Solo]

^ Couldn't you have PMed that?

[Reel On, Love]

Yeah, but I think it's suitable for the board. I *have* PMed a question which he refused to address on the boards.

[Rutee]

JKR is British. Homosexuality is far less of a big deal over there. If she says it didn't even occur to her to mention it, I buy that.
....

I failed my multiculturalism roll! Objection withdrawn.

[turkishproverb]

And some people find your "traditional values" to be offensive, disgusting, and irreverent of their values.
You can disagree with her thesis all you want, but if you have to fall back on the patently ridiculous "sexual orientation is a choice!" position, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's impossible to maintain that belief in the face of rational thought. Here's something to chew on: if sexual orientation were a choice, I would be bisexual. I would very much prefer it to heterosexuality. But you know what? I've kissed guys. It's kind of weird (and scratchy) and it does absolutely nothing for me. Naked men in an erotic context don't arouse me (studies do show, however, that gay pornography causes arousal in homophobic men but not regular heterosexual men). And there's nothing I can do to change that. If sexual orientation is a choice, why can't I seem to make mine? Why can't so many gay kids--who don't WANT to be gay, who are outcast, teased, degraded, and beaten up for it, who stand the risk of being killed for it (see Mathew Shepard... or other, more recent cases)--choose otherwise, no matter how much they'd like to?

Comparing homosexuality to murderous sociopathy is roughly the equivalent of saying "you support [some regulation]? You NAZI!" Homosexuality doesn't harm other people.

Sigh. I would at this point like to state that, as a member of the Gay rights movement, I honestly don't beleive people are born Gay, and I still am in full support of gay and lesbian rights. I'm not closed to the idea of genetic or biological influence, but I am also not sold on predetermination.

For me, its a simple matter of wondering why, even as a choice, it would be a problem. And the numbers don't give a good reason, much less the abstracts.

And by the way, landadmiral, you keep talking about homosexuality, as something sexual being inappropriate for Kids books. But you have yet to complain about any of the kissing etc or romantic relationships in the rest of harry potter. If there's no sex, why should it be a mature audiences issue if a guy is kissing or dating another guy, yet not be an issue if he's dating and kissing a girl?

[JadedDM]

It makes their story into a tragedy, focusing on how they each felt that the other betrayed their love; it also adds a bit more meaning to Grindelwald's death (recall that he died trying to mislead Voldemort; his love for Dumbledore might have had something to do with that.)

Wait a second...was Grindelwald gay, too? I don't remember J.K. mentioning that. I sort of assumed Dumbledore's love for him was not reciprocated...which actually made it even more tragic, really.

[Dhavaer]

Wait a second...was Grindelwald gay, too? I don't remember J.K. mentioning that. I sort of assumed Dumbledore's love for him was not reciprocated...which actually made it even more tragic, really.

I'm pretty sure you're right; I remember something about Rowling saying the love was unrequited.

[Hallavast]

Wait a second...was Grindelwald gay, too? I don't remember J.K. mentioning that. I sort of assumed Dumbledore's love for him was not reciprocated...which actually made it even more tragic, really.

This doesn't mean Grindelwald wasn't gay. It doesn't mean he was either...

[Winterwind]

Homosexual, heterosexual, it's all the same. All just sexual orientations, none more noteworthy, appropriate or "right" than the other.

Dumbledore being gay doesn't carry any special meaning; however, Rowling treating it so casually is commendable.

[Solo]

Sigh. I would at this point like to state that, as a member of the Gay rights movement, I honestly don't beleive people are born Gay, and I still am in full support of gay and lesbian rights. I'm not closed to the idea of genetic or biological influence, but I am also not sold on predetermination.


As for predetermination, it has been speculated that the amount of hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb has something to do with sexual orientation.

The best data would seem to indicate (I get this from my psych. text book) there there is no clear cut reason people are gay. There is data to support several conflicting theories, so maybe people become gay for several reasons, or perhaps each person's reason for being gay is different.

Or something.

[SpaceMonkey]

I honestly don't care if Dumbledore is gay, it makes no difference in my opinion of the character or the writer. I have had several homosexual friends and they are all good honest people so, like I said makes no difference to me if Dumbledore is gay or not.

I think J.K. Rowling just said that to make the ultra-conservative people that are just now accepting and letting their kids read the books go "EEEEK, oh no there is a fact of life in here we can't expose our children to this!", I think it's rather funny.

SpaceMonkey

[DomaDoma]

One must realize, landadmiral, that if your children follow examples from harry potter they:
1. Torture their enemies and are justified. (last book)

Nah, that Cruciatus was pretty clearly giving in to a moment of weakness. The Imperius Curse, on the other hand...


2. Are encouraged to put their friendships over their convictions (first book)

I'm not sure to what bit you're referring - only things that come to mind on that note are Neville's intervention and Harry's "SO WHAT?" speech, both of which are definitely given authorial approval.


3. Are taught that any kind of humility is posh (Harry's an arrogant tard, I'm sorry.)

I'm not seeing that, aside from his first temper tantrum in OotP, which arose from a desire to do something more than anything. Take, for instance, the contrast between "Keeper of the Keys" and "The Secret Riddle". Or his reaction to the proposal of the DA. Or his constant rebuffal of Slughorn. Et cetera.


4. Breaking the rules is okay, in fact its virtous, that silly hermione, telling people not to break the rules (first book forward, all the time, every time. Look at Fred and George. Are they ever disapproved of? By anybody but their doting mother, who is portrayed as an idiot?)

Molly Weasley is not an idiot, but aside from that, yeah, pretty much.

[Dark Demon Lord]

It dosen't matter id dumbledore was gay, though she could have let us know earlier in the series.

[Trog]

Plus, he fulfilled the "Dead homosexual" cliche >.>

Hmm. Interesting. Haven't heard of that one. Any other examples? :smallconfused:

[Tengu]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfMortality

Gay people die quickly in fiction - their likelihood of death is 4 points out of 5.

[Green Bean]

I'm pretty sure you're right; I remember something about Rowling saying the love was unrequited.

Well, so much for Brokeback Wizardry, then. :smalltongue:

[Setra]

OH GODS MY BRAIN!!! AAAAARGH IT BURNS!!
Muahahahaaa

[DomaDoma]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfMortality

Gay people die quickly in fiction - their likelihood of death is 4 points out of 5.

Pretty sure it's the "mentor" thing that did it, actually.