Dumbledore's Gay

[kengs333]

Many pedophiles are heterosexuals. Does that make heterosexuality deviant sexual behaviour? The flaws in your thinking are gigantic.

Heterosexuality is normal, if sex is not performed in a proper way then it is deviant. That means homosexuality, pedophelia, incest, rape, bestiality are all deviant behaviour. Most acts of pedophelia are between men and boys, women and girls; not only is this pedophelia, it's also homosexual behaviour.

You think homosexuality is immoral. Fine. That is your opinion and you have the right to it. But let other people live their lives in peace. Some people think drinking alcohol is immoral. Does that mean all references to alcohol should be removed from books, television, etc.?

That's not the issue; it's the fact that it is being imposed on people who are expected to accept it as "normal". Why does JKR have to make the character "gay"--there's no reason other than the fact that she's pushing an agenda, just like she's trying to push "witchcraft" as being not evil?

Homosexuality is a fact of life and it has a perfectly acceptable place in literature. Trying to hide from reality is ridiculous. As is thinking that reading that a character is gay will somehow turn children everywhere into homosexuals.

The point has already been made that pedophelia and other forms of sexual deviance are "a fact of life"--by your logic that makes them "normal". If you don;t think that things like this influence children, then you are sadly out of touch. Why do children read books? To learn. If things they read can't influence them, then how do they learn by reading books?

As for protecting the innocence of children... the characters faced tough situations, including the deaths of several main characters, throughout the books. "Protecting children's innocence" does not mean that we place our children in a bubble until they are 18.

I'm talking about protecting children's innocence, not protecting them from hardship or the fact that people die. Forcing children to make decisions about sexuality at the ages of 7-10 is pretty disgusting. You wouldn't expose them to pictures of sex acts at this age, but expecting them to think about this behaviour is perfectly okay.

[jazzer]

deleted

Edited October 21, 2007 by jazzer

[kengs333]

So homosexuality is wrong because it used to be a crime? Is allowing women to vote wrong because it used to be that only men could vote? Your argument here is flawed.

Doubtful. There are more acts of theft in Canada than pedophilia. Does that mean theft is about to become legal?

So how exactly are women voting and sexual deviance the same? It's you're "argument" that's flawed.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are two forms of sexual deviance. Both were illegal. Now homosexuality is legal, while pedophilia is not. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups, maybe because some of the people behind the change engaged in that kind of behaviour, as well. Now, when you think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality, it really is only a matter of time. Let's not forget that pedophelia was a "normal" aspect of many societies, including the ancient Romans and Greeks, and there's apprently nothing to stop it from happening here. Heaven help us if it does.

[Peter F]

Pedophilia and homosexuality are two forms of sexual deviance. Both were illegal. Now homosexuality is legal, while pedophilia is not. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups, maybe because some of the people behind the change engaged in that kind of behaviour, as well. Now, when you think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality, it really is only a matter of time. Let's not forget that pedophelia was a "normal" aspect of many societies, including the ancient Romans and Greeks, and there's apprently nothing to stop it from happening here. Heaven help us if it does.

Homosexuality is not pedophilia. You're continual equating the two is bullshit.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal because of the homosexual lobby who got sick and tired

of the oppresion they suffered from a society trying, for hundreds of years, to crush them.

They made thier case, over the years, and they won most of us over to seeing homosexuality as a condition of thier existance and that they shouldn't be jailed, denied jobs or housing etc because of it.

You, apparently, still thnk that would be a good thing.

But pedophilia is still illigal. Thats because of a fundemental difference between the two, wich you are too blinded by your religion to see; Pedophiles invariably cause harm. Homosexuals do not.

I like performing oral sex. I am a deviant. I should be outlawed.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Peter F

[NovaScotian]

So how exactly are women voting and sexual deviance the same? It's you're "argument" that's flawed.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are two forms of sexual deviance. Both were illegal. Now homosexuality is legal, while pedophilia is not. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups, maybe because some of the people behind the change engaged in that kind of behaviour, as well. Now, when you think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality, it really is only a matter of time. Let's not forget that pedophelia was a "normal" aspect of many societies, including the ancient Romans and Greeks, and there's apprently nothing to stop it from happening here. Heaven help us if it does.

You are forgetting something important here. Pedophilia is committed by an adults towards innocent children. It is unconsented and very harmful to the child. It will NEVER be allowed in our modern society.

Homosexuality is attraction between members of the same sex. With many of the same aspects of a heterosexuality.....More importantly it is between to consenting individuals.

[ScottSA]

Whats immoral? There are gay people in this world, accept it.

This argument has no merit. There are murderers in the world too, so we're supposed to "accept it?" Logic 101...no need to say thanks!

[ScottSA]

Many pedophiles are heterosexuals. Does that make heterosexuality deviant sexual behaviour? The flaws in your thinking are gigantic.

Not really, considering that a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles are homos.

[bk59]

Heterosexuality is normal, if sex is not performed in a proper way then it is deviant. That means homosexuality, pedophelia, incest, rape, bestiality are all deviant behaviour.

How does one properly perform sex? You remind me of people who declare that there is only one proper way to have sex - missionary position. Perhaps you would like to criminalize other sex positions?

If you look at your list, you will find that homosexuality is the only sexual practice that involves consenting partners where one partner (generally) does not have a power imbalance over the other. Pedophilia and incest are generally non-consensual or exist in a relationship with an unfair power imbalance that is the same as non-consensual. Rape is clearly non-consensual as is bestiality.

That's not the issue; it's the fact that it is being imposed on people who are expected to accept it as "normal". Why does JKR have to make the character "gay"--there's no reason other than the fact that she's pushing an agenda, just like she's trying to push "witchcraft" as being not evil?

No one is imposing homosexuality on anyone. In fact, nowhere in the books does it mention homosexuality.

The point has already been made that pedophelia and other forms of sexual deviance are "a fact of life"--by your logic that makes them "normal". If you don;t think that things like this influence children, then you are sadly out of touch. Why do children read books? To learn. If things they read can't influence them, then how do they learn by reading books?

No. I did not say pedophilia was normal, nor imply that it should be accepted in society. Pedophilia is something different from homosexuality. Your attempts to link the two show an extreme misunderstanding of both.

Tell me, if books are so influential, then why does anyone grow up to be homosexual? By your rationale, reading about heterosexual families in children's books will influence children to grow up heterosexual.

I'm talking about protecting children's innocence, not protecting them from hardship or the fact that people die. Forcing children to make decisions about sexuality at the ages of 7-10 is pretty disgusting. You wouldn't expose them to pictures of sex acts at this age, but expecting them to think about this behaviour is perfectly okay.

First, I think many people would say that part of a children's innocence comes from their lack of exposure to death. Second, no one is forcing children to make decisions about sexuality just because a character in a book happens to be homosexual. Dumbledore does not pop out of the book and say, "Hey, kids! Are you gay?" Third, heaven forbid that our children think! That would be horrible!

[bk59]

So how exactly are women voting and sexual deviance the same? It's you're "argument" that's flawed.

You say homosexuality is wrong. You cite as proof the fact that homosexuality was once considered a crime. Using that logic, you could argue that allowing women to vote is wrong because it was once not allowed under the law. Do you now see why your argument is flawed?

Pedophilia and homosexuality are two forms of sexual deviance. Both were illegal. Now homosexuality is legal, while pedophilia is not. Why? Because of pressure from special interest groups, maybe because some of the people behind the change engaged in that kind of behaviour, as well. Now, when you think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality, it really is only a matter of time. Let's not forget that pedophelia was a "normal" aspect of many societies, including the ancient Romans and Greeks, and there's apprently nothing to stop it from happening here. Heaven help us if it does.

Again, you link homosexuality and pedophilia. With no reason to do so. So no, pedophilia does NOT have a "foot in the door". And the fact that homosexuality used to be a crime continues to be totally irrelevant. As another example, it used to be the law that women were not allowed to own property in a marriage. Does this mean that today when we allow married women to own property we are somehow engaged in immoral activities? Believe it or not, just because something used to be considered against the law does not mean that it was ever wrong.

[bk59]

Not really, considering that a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles are homos.

That is wrong.

See here.

...a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.

[NovaScotian]

Not really, considering that a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles are homos.

Pedophiles will usually offend against a child no matter the gender, that doesn't make them homosexual.....given that the great majority are married.

Edited October 21, 2007 by NovaScotian

[ScottSA]

Pedophiles will usually offend against a child no matter the gender, that doesn't make them homosexual.....given that the great majority are married.

Oh nonsense. Pedophiles almost always pick one gender, and very few deviate (excuse the pun). Approximately 1/3 of male pedophiles pick boys. I don't have time to dig up the stat, but it's readily available on the net. Yet only 2-3% of males are homos.

[Peter F]

Yet only 2-3% of males are homos.

I guess you have completely forgotten Rue's shredding of this argument a few months ago.

Homosexuality is not pedophelia and equating the two is pure unadulterated bullshit.

[geoffrey]

Homosexuality is not pedophelia and equating the two is pure unadulterated bullshit.

I don't believe that that Scott is saying homosexuality is pedophelia. He's saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual.

All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, you see.

You should stop creating strawmen out of other's arguments while bashing the structure of those very arguments. Just because your personal biases lead you to believe that all supporting Scott's views believe that simply doesn't make it so. It's very intolerant and ignorant.

That said, I think Scott is factually correct but logically wrong in deriving his conclusions. I don't support any such claim of sexual deviance. I have little issue with people doing whatever the hell they want as long as I don't see it (if there is a gay pride parade, I have ever right to tell them to get the hell out of my sight... but if people want to be gay (or are gay rather), have at it. If people want to have multiple sexual partners, who cares? If people want to do whatever they want (in a truly consenting relationship).... I could care less.

The nation really does have no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but the bedrooms of the nation have no business being a huge out of proportion government lobby and special interest group either.

Back to the particular issue at hand, I figure this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to get more readers. People will inevitably buy more books to try to find hints and so on. The series of books is done. Now the author needs to continue to keep it in the headlines. Good call. Probably a staged question to get the response.

[jazzer]

I don't believe that that Scott is saying homosexuality is pedophelia. He's saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual.

The highest rate I've found on the net is around 35%. I wouldn't consider that "generally homosexual."

[August1991]

All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, you see.

... I think Scott is factually correct but logically wrong in deriving his conclusions. I don't support any such claim of sexual deviance. I have little issue with people doing whatever the hell they want as long as I don't see it (if there is a gay pride parade, I have ever right to tell them to get the hell out of my sight... but if people want to be gay (or are gay rather), have at it. If people want to have multiple sexual partners, who cares? If people want to do whatever they want (in a truly consenting relationship).... I could care less.

Exactly.

The nation really does have no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but the bedrooms of the nation have no business being a huge out of proportion government lobby and special interest group either.

Separate point but I agree too.

Back to the particular issue at hand, I figure this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to get more readers. People will inevitably buy more books to try to find hints and so on. The series of books is done. Now the author needs to continue to keep it in the headlines. Good call. Probably a staged question to get the response.

Hadn't thought of that angle. Does she need the money?

[bk59]

Oh nonsense. Pedophiles almost always pick one gender, and very few deviate (excuse the pun). Approximately 1/3 of male pedophiles pick boys. I don't have time to dig up the stat, but it's readily available on the net. Yet only 2-3% of males are homos.

I guess it is easier to just post rather than actually read what others have posted. See the links / quotes below. Or in my previous post.

I don't believe that that Scott is saying homosexuality is pedophelia. He's saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual.

...

That said, I think Scott is factually correct but logically wrong in deriving his conclusions.

Saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual is still wrong. First, even using ScottSA's own claims, only 1/3 of male pedophiles pick boys. When 2/3 do not choose children of the same sex you can hardly say that "pedophiles are generally homosexual." In fact, you could say the exact opposite.

But again, look at some of the studies that have been done by professionals:

The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases explicitly argued the opposite. These scientists have concluded that pedophilia is a separate orientation from homosexuality and that the vast majority of molesters who target boys have either no interest in mature males or are heterosexual men who are attracted to the feminine characteristics of young boys.

...

Most significantly, while social conservatives claim that all the cases of sexual molestation of young boys by adult males are committed by homosexuals, the scientists whom they cite explicitly reject this assertion.

[maldon_road]

This argument has no merit. There are murderers in the world too, so we're supposed to "accept it?" Logic 101...no need to say thanks!

Homosexuality is legal. Gay marriage is legal. Anglicans bless gay couples. Gays live openly and are found in all walks of life - business, arts, politics, religion.

You are equating them with murderers?

[ScottSA]

Homosexuality is legal. Gay marriage is legal. Anglicans bless gay couples. Gays live openly and are found in all walks of life - business, arts, politics, religion.

You are equating them with murderers?

No, but I'll suggest that you look up the logic 101 idea of conceptual transference, otherwise known as "logical transference."

[Moxie]

If one uses biblical passages as their reason for believing Homosexuality is deviant, are they aware of the Secret Gospel according to Mark?

Passage: St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) contains a passage which includes the following text. --

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

That sounds like a homosexual liason to me, was Jesus GAY?

Link to the article: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Al...pel-of-Mark.htm

[maldon_road]

That sounds like a homosexual liason to me, was Jesus GAY?

According to "The Da Vinci Code" wasn't he supposed to have been shagging Mary Magdalene?

It's relevant here since both that book and the Harry Potter series are fiction.

[GostHacked]

All this violence in all our media has more of a devestating impact on children than homosexuality. One freakin gay character in the series of books is a small issue compared to the violence that is in the Harry Potter movies.

What about bisexuals? Half-Deviants?

Uneducated ignorant people always complain that being gay is a bad thing.

[ScottSA]

If one uses biblical passages as their reason for believing Homosexuality is deviant, are they aware of the Secret Gospel according to Mark?

Passage: St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) contains a passage which includes the following text. --

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

That sounds like a homosexual liason to me, was Jesus GAY?

Link to the article: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Al...pel-of-Mark.htm

I'm hardly a biblical scholar, but it's kind of ridiculous to use highly contentious evidence to bolster your case.

[kimmy]

People up in arms that this sort of "sinister message" has been fed to children through the Harry Potter books have overlooked the fact that IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN THE BOOKS.

Back to the particular issue at hand, I figure this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to get more readers. People will inevitably buy more books to try to find hints and so on. The series of books is done. Now the author needs to continue to keep it in the headlines. Good call. Probably a staged question to get the response.

Hadn't thought of that angle. Does she need the money?

Forbes considers her a billionaire, 891st richest person in the world. I presume that includes only her financial assets, and not the value of her intellectual property. If she were so inclined, I suspect she could easily pocket more billions by selling the rights to her Potter franchise to some movie studio or entertainment conglomerate.

Rowling is the only author in the world right now (and maybe in history) whose book releases have created the kind of pandemonium usually reserved for blockbuster movie premieres and video game releases.

She needn't worry about ever selling another book. (retailers, on the other hand, are VERY worried...)

At some point, she'll probably decide to begin some new literary enterprise, and her name and reputation alone will probably ensure its success, though it seems unlikely that it could have the same scale of success that the Potter series has had. It seems unlikely that someone could capture lightning in a bottle twice.

Why would she "out" Dumbledore? She was asked to expand upon one of the characters by providing information that's not in the books, and she obliged. When authors create fictional characters and fictional settings, they create far more information about the characters and settings than ever appears in their books. There are lots of details about characters that an author would consider in creating a character that would be superfluous to the story being told but still important in considering how a character acts. The fact that it was never mentioned in the books does not mean it was made up just now as a stunt or something. It just means there was no reason for that for that information in the book series.

-k

[Peter F]

Geoffery:

I don't believe that that Scott is saying homosexuality is pedophelia. He's saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual.

ScottSA is saying that homosexuality is a danger to society because a disproportionate amount of homosexuals are pedophiles. You see the link there? According to the proffessor

gays acount for 2-3% of the population yet make up 1/3 of pedophiles.

Therefore homosexuality is bad, evil, and dangerous.

He ignores facts. The facts are that a mature males body structure, intellect, experience, desires and genitalia are in no way comparable to an immature child. To be sexually attracted to children is in no way comparable to the sexual attraction to mature people.

Using your fruit analogy: ScottSA is saying that apples are apples and oranges are oranges but some oranges are apples but more apples are oranges.

The entire concept of equating heterosexuality/homosexuality to pedophelia is bullshit.