Dumbledore's Gay

[jazzer]

You don't really seem to get it. Whether or not Churches that follow the teachings of Christ "are dying" while Churches that erroniously "allow Homosexuals" are "thriving (they aren't) is irrelevant. People who follow the teachings of Christ are the only true Christians, they are the ones who will find everlasting life in Heaven. The Bible is quite clear when it comes to sexual deviance that it is a sin, Christ makes it clear what happens to those who continue to live in sin. If you recall the parable in which Jesus talks about those who lose interest in his teachings, and the roots do not take hold; you do recall that Jesus states that only the few will be rewarded for their faith. Homosexuals, or people who believe that sexual deviants can be Christians, can belive themselves to be Christians all they want, but in my opinion I don't think it will do them much good.

Faith in God, the teachings of Christ, are timeless--there's nothing narrow minded about it. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You're reference to narrow mindedness is, of course, one of the standard devices used by the gay rights movement--anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is "narrow minded"? Hardly. Being a slave to sin, sexual deviance is truly narrow minded. But I guess anyone whose mind is clouded by such things won'r recognize that fact.

I hope you one day see the error of your ways...

I could say the same of you. We've had the NT for 2000 years and we have more unrest than ever. The things done in the name of God has cost the lives of countless thousands. Being open to tolerance does not equate to having a clouded mind. Quite the opposite. I accept all religions. Can you say the same?

[bk59]

Wrong on both counts.

That was persuasive. It really was. I guess I believe you now. Wait... no, I don't. I don't suppose you have something to back your statement up with? Because it seems pretty well accepted that the New Testament was canonized over time by various church authorities.

See here.

Read the NT and find out. Jesus taught peace and non-violence, but he also taught about the evils of sin and the consequences of a sinful life.

Invoking the teachings of Christ when you don't really understand what they mean is not only ignorant, it's insulting and disrespectful.

I agree with that last statement. Which is why I can't stand it when people use Christ to justify everything from capital punishment to criminalizing homosexuality. You cannot force people to change.

Of course you didn't answer my question either. Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?

[kengs333]

The things done in the name of God has cost the lives of countless thousands.

You obviously don't understand the NT if you make a comment like this.

[kengs333]

I agree with that last statement. Which is why I can't stand it when people use Christ to justify everything from capital punishment to criminalizing homosexuality. You cannot force people to change.

Sorry, but "use Christ to justify" is a complete misrepresentation of my faith. I don't "use Christ," I follow his teaching, I have faith in God, I strive to live without sin. My Saviour is not something I use for my convenience, to bolster my arguments.

Criminalizing homosexuality is something that society does; irregardless of whether it is criminalized or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is immoral, that it is an absolute wrong. Certainly criminalizing does disuades many from seeking that lifestyle in the first place, as does not promoting it in childrens' literature.

People can change; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Nobody's talking about using force.

[jazzer]

You obviously don't understand the NT if you make a comment like this.

Are you denying the Crusades, the Inquisition, the IRA, abortion doctor killings? How about a born again Christian, let's call him George, leading an illegal invasion of a country on a lie? People have died in the name of God throughout history. The problem of many Christians is that they don't follow their leader's example. I'm not down on religion; I'm down on hypocrisy. And that is rampant in many Christian organizations. And all the intolerance from the religious right has created the attitudes most Christians have against gays. There, rant done.

Edited October 22, 2007 by jazzer

[bk59]

Sorry, but "use Christ to justify" is a complete misrepresentation of my faith. I don't "use Christ," I follow his teaching, I have faith in God, I strive to live without sin. My Saviour is not something I use for my convenience, to bolster my arguments.

Perhaps. But you have so far shown no other reason other than your faith as to why homosexuality is immoral. So it would appear by your postings on this forum, so far, that you do use your faith to bolster your arguments. This may not be true in your off-line life, but given your postings in this thread, how could anyone on this forum reach a different conclusion?

Criminalizing homosexuality is something that society does; irregardless of whether it is criminalized or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is immoral, that it is an absolute wrong. Certainly criminalizing does disuades many from seeking that lifestyle in the first place, as does not promoting it in childrens' literature.

And why is it an absolute wrong? Why is it immoral? For the record, saying "it is obvious" is not proof of anything.

People can change; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Nobody's talking about using force.

Can you change your skin colour from white to brown? From black to white? Can you change whether or not you are good enough to play hockey in the NHL? Or football in the CFL? Perhaps I am not the one being disingenuous. And yes, some people who espouse your views do talk about using force. Camps that "cure people of their gayness" come to mind.

[bk59]

You obviously don't understand the NT if you make a comment like this.

I don't think that the people who killed in God's name understood the New Testament either. And yet history is full of these people. They come from many different religions.

[bk59]

Are you denying the Crusades, the Inquisition, the IRA, abortion doctor killings? How about a born again Christian, let's call him George, leading an illegal invasion of a country on a lie? People have died in the name of God throughout history. The problem of many Christians is that they don't follow their leader's example.

Talk about the Crusades, the Inquisition, even abortion doctor killings if you like. But let's not claim that Iraq was invaded in the name of God. There is little evidence to show this. And while some people do claim that God is on their side in the war in Iraq, I think it is difficult to show that the entire war is a religious crusade. Certainly not on the order of the Crusades or with the clear purpose given by abortion doctor murderers.

That being said, feel free to show evidence showing otherwise. But so far I am unaware of Bush going on TV explicitly saying that God is leading America in the Iraq war.

[jefferiah]

Certainly not on the order of the Crusades.

I wouldn't call the Crusades a clear cut case either.

Before the Crusades began Muslim forces were imperializing for centuries.

Edited October 23, 2007 by jefferiah

[kengs333]

I don't think that the people who killed in God's name understood the New Testament either. And yet history is full of these people. They come from many different religions.

Bravo. I commend you for finally realizing this. Yet, I doubt it will stop you and many others from lumping them in the Christian camp, anyway.

[kengs333]

Perhaps. But you have so far shown no other reason other than your faith as to why homosexuality is immoral. So it would appear by your postings on this forum, so far, that you do use your faith to bolster your arguments. This may not be true in your off-line life, but given your postings in this thread, how could anyone on this forum reach a different conclusion?

And why is it an absolute wrong? Why is it immoral? For the record, saying "it is obvious" is not proof of anything.

This doesn't really relate to what you "quote" so I'm assuming that you haven't really understood what I wrote.

Can you change your skin colour from white to brown? From black to white? Can you change whether or not you are good enough to play hockey in the NHL? Or football in the CFL? Perhaps I am not the one being disingenuous. And yes, some people who espouse your views do talk about using force. Camps that "cure people of their gayness" come to mind.

I think you know full well what I mean by change. Suggesting that it should also apply to changing one's skin colour is just plain stupid. Nor is the reference to sports all that much better. We're talking about people changing their attitudes, lifestyles and worldview--this is something that can happen at any age. Your suggesting that someone who is gay can never change, that they are condemned to living that lifestyle; I disagree. Not everyone who tries will succeed, and those are the ones who go around saying that it can't be done, which people like you will readily believe.

[maldon_road]

If there is a significant criticism to be made of "Dumbledore's outing" it's the way the author did it. It should have been done in the book. Gay characters are becoming more and more common in fiction as homosexuality has become more accepted by the public but in a children's book to do it the way the author did it is to blindside parents who may have to explain to young kids what all the fuss is about.

Rowling's outing of Dumbledore lauded

In the biggest outing in the entertainment industry since Ellen DeGeneres (did anyone care that much about Lance Bass or Neil Patrick Harris?), J.K. Rowling has revealed that Dumbledore, Harry Potter's late headmaster, was in love with a man.

The revelation, which came at a Q&A session after a reading at Carnegie Hall in New York on Friday night and was met with cheers, has left some Canadian Potter fans confused.

"It seems weird that she revealed it outside the context of the story," says Sarah Charlton, a 25-year-old consultant in Toronto who was one of the hundreds who lined up to be among the first to buy Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in July. "If it was important to her, I feel she should have put it in the book."...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/Entertainment

Edited October 22, 2007 by maldon_road

[GostHacked]

Millions of children are reading books. Learning, expanding their minds, learning, exlporing.

Thanks to JKR, millions and millions of children are reading and learning many things. Is this not what we are supposed to do for our children? Get them learning and asking questions about the world we live in?

This is a non issue about a character in a fictional book being gay. OH NO the books have witchcraft as well. Some think that is bad in itself to expose children to these 'evil fantasies'.

Were any of you kids once? Did you read fantasy or sci-fi stuff? Play Dungeons and Dragons? Did any of you care if a character was gay? Did you even know?

So now that Dumbledore is gay, does it really change your views on the Harry Potter 'universe' ?? Not for me, to me it is still about growing up and exploring new things. Also self discovery.

Now that the Harry Potter is an adult in the novels (over 18 right), does that change how things are done? I think yes! Kids have grown up with Harry Potter, so it seems like a no brainer that the content of the books could change as well in time. More serious and more adult related content.

But the overall thing is here, kids are learing to read, and loving reading. JKR created a fantastic univserse for kids to wonder and explore. They talk about it, ask questions and grow. Is this really bad for kids?? One gay character ruins that whole experience?

[M.Dancer]

So is pedophilia, but that doesn't make it normal, and it doesn't mean we should assault kids with it.

And we're not....

....anymore strawmen? There are crows in my fields......

Edited October 22, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

I think many of you are missing the important question but I will get to that, first just to clarify things.....

1)When an author creates a character, the author often first creates an extensive biography of the character form childhood to the present, detailing numerous events that have shaped the characters personality and life. The readers most likely will never know 90% of the background material as it isn't germane to the story but the author would consult frequently the bio so that when the write about the character or speak in the character's voice, the character is consistent and realistic..

2) In all the Harry Potter books there is nothing about the character Dumbledore that would give any reader much of a clue one way or another about his sexuality other than he is unmarried and wears robes.....By that criteria, also suspect are Minerva and Snape......

3) The outing was unnecessary and probably wouldn't have happened had someone not asked a direct question.

And now the most important question.

Who is gayest in the wizard camp, Dumbledore or Gandalf?

[CLRV]

Who is gayest in the wizard camp, Dumbledore or Gandalf?

Rincewind.

Edited October 22, 2007 by CLRV

[M.Dancer]

Rincewind.

I would have to agree.......but didn't he get involved with blossum .......

EDIT....

Thank you wiki....it was Two Flower....but later.....

good illustration of Rincewind's pre-emptive karma takes place while he was stranded on an island. He had managed to eke out a comfortable and boring existence, and some Amazon warrior-females found him. Apparently, they needed a man for breeding purposes, as all their menfolk had died from a highly selective plague. Rincewind never seems to grasp what is expected of him, but forms the impression that he was getting "potatoes for life." Just then, the wizards of Unseen University transported him to Ankh-Morpork, so they could send him to the Agatean Empire. There he was chased, knocked out, and nearly killed several times. Rincewind has theorized that in order to balance out the universe, there must be, somewhere, someone to whom nothing but good happens. Someone who saunters from one comfortable place to the next. Rincewind still hopes to meet him some day, hopefully while carrying a weapon.

In fact, Rincewind has the dubious privilege of being the Chosen of the Lady, the Discworld's most mysterious goddess. It is for this reason that he is constantly finding himself embroiled in unpleasant situations and coming out more-or-less on top. However if he ever realised this, much less acted as though nothing could seriously harm him, then she would instantly lose interest. Besides, having the favour of the Lady, in addition to being unreliable, also means having the very reliable enmity of Fate.

He has also developed an obsession with potatoes, which is implied to be a result of misplaced sexual feelings. Interesting Times states that later on in his life he will have to undergo therapy for this affliction, involving a pretty woman, a plate of potatoes and a large stick with a nail in it.

Edited October 22, 2007 by M.Dancer

[CLRV]

Well, perhaps Rincewind is more of a fetishist than a homo, since he shows no sexual interest in males or females. Which is just as well, since wizards are forbidden from having sex at all for fear that they might procreate. We don't need another Sourcerer.

I've always held some suspicions about Ridcully and the Bursar, though.

[M.Dancer]

Well, perhaps Rincewind is more of a fetishist than a homo, since he shows no sexual interest in males or females. Which is just as well, since wizards are forbidden from having sex at all for fear that they might procreate. We don't need another Sourcerer.

I've always held some suspicions about Ridcully and the Bursar, though.

Ridcully is definately a tosser....but the librarian.......

[CLRV]

But leaving that infinitely superior fantasy series aside for a second. It surprises me that nobody has had the reaction I have had to all this. I think it's painfully obvious that this is just Rowling's latest and most shameless attempt yet to get her books (already the most shamefully overrated and over-hyped fantasy series in literary history) back once again into the media spotlight for some more free publicity.

Far from a literary achievement, the Potter series was merely a marketing triumph. The sales tactics were brilliant. Always released at the holidays. Always released in tandem with a movie so the more unimaginative don't have to work too hard conjuring up settings and characters. Always completely obsessed upon by so-called news media, providing endless "coverage" of upcoming releases. Essentially unpaid infomercials, the public mind was bombarded with images of screaming children high on brand recognition; shot after shot of hapless parents shamed into enduring days-long lineups for fear of being charged with child abuse for not getting their little darling the latest essential gift of the season.

But now... Rowling's drawn a blank. She's got no more ideas; no more Potter books. There's no reason for the press to hype her work anymore. No new books or movies. No lineups to pan over. No teaser movie clips to run on an endless loop. How can she possibly get this mediocre fantasy series back into the limelight?

Eureka! Dumbledore is a poof! Brilliant! This could spawn weeks and months of endless controversy and debate. All the sad, self-loathing, repressed homosexuals are bound to come creeping out from under the baseboards, as they do any time the word "homosexual" comes up in a sentence other than "Let's go out and beat up a ____". The usual sad nonsense about pedophilia will be trumped out, especially since this is ostensibly a children's series. And, of course, the liberals will feel the need to somehow justify and validate the non-issue because, well, that's just what liberals seem to feel the need to do whenever confronted with ridiculous non-issues from the right.

Never mind that there's not a shred of evidence or indication in the actual text of this supposed gender bending. Rowling's characters are about as sexually real and anatomically correct as a Barbie and Ken. All smooth down there, don't you know. Doesn't matter. This is controversy for it's own sake. Roll the movie footage. Get the talking heads going in front of it. Let's sell some goddam BOOKS!

Hey, it's cheaper than paid advertising...

[M.Dancer]

But leaving that infinitely superior fantasy series aside for a second. It surprises me that nobody has had the reaction I have had to all this. I think it's painfully obvious that this is just Rowling's latest and most shameless attempt yet to get her books (already the most shamefully overrated and over-hyped fantasy series in literary history) back once again into the media spotlight for some more free publicity.

*snip*

But now... Rowling's drawn a blank. She's got no more ideas; no more Potter books. There's no reason for the press to hype her work anymore. No new books or movies. No lineups to pan over. No teaser movie clips to run on an endless loop. How can she possibly get this mediocre fantasy series back into the limelight?

*snip*

Never mind that there's not a shred of evidence or indication in the actual text of this supposed gender bending. Rowling's characters are about as sexually real and anatomically correct as a Barbie and Ken. All smooth down there, don't you know. Doesn't matter. This is controversy for it's own sake. Roll the movie footage. Get the talking heads going in front of it. Let's sell some goddam BOOKS!

Hey, it's cheaper than paid advertising...

Yeah....you got to wonder ...she's the first billionaire author, on the strength of one franchise. Her books are still selling strong and there's still two more movies to make........ No matter what she writes now.....she will always be compared to the Harry Potter franchise. Her only hope is to spin off the series......

[jazzer]

But let's not claim that Iraq was invaded in the name of God. There is little evidence to show this.

I bring Bush into the equation as he is a self-professed born again Christian, who started a war. I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but he tosses God around a lot. At the very least he is a complete liar/hypocrite, and Iraq, because of the invasion has cost the lives of many innocents. Plus there is that one quote floating around where he said God told him to invade. link

[jazzer]

I wouldn't call the Crusades a clear cut case either. Though I would hesitate to call them glorious or good, the motives behind the crusades were as many as the different bands of knights in involved. Some people fight a war for the fun of pillaging and adventure. Some people have agendas others do not. But the initial reason for the Crusades seems to me to be understandable.

Before the Crusades began Muslim forces were imperializing for centuries. It was not until Islam began to imperialize its way into Spain that Europe began to take up arms.

You're denying that the Crusades were a holy war? Let's see. From Wikipedia: Pope sanctions most crusades in the name of Christendom. Purpose is recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims.

The origin of the Crusades is directly traceable to the moral and political condition of Western Christendom in the eleventh century. At that time Europe was divided into numerous states whose sovereigns were absorbed in tedious and petty territorial disputes while the emperor, in theory the temporal head of Christendom, was wasting his strength in the quarrel over Investitures. The popes alone had maintained a just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by the Byzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions were formed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through the influence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christian nations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades.

link

Edited October 22, 2007 by jazzer

[bk59]

Bravo. I commend you for finally realizing this. Yet, I doubt it will stop you and many others from lumping them in the Christian camp, anyway.

Finally? Not really. I've had that view for quite a while now. And yes, some who claim to be Christians are in that camp whether you want to believe that or not.

[bk59]

This doesn't really relate to what you "quote" so I'm assuming that you haven't really understood what I wrote.

I applaud you on once again dodging the hard questions. I wonder how long you can keep this up. I guess I'll just ask again: why is homosexuality immoral? Why is homosexuality wrong? How is homosexuality harming our society?

I look forward to seeing how you avoid these questions in your next post.

I think you know full well what I mean by change. Suggesting that it should also apply to changing one's skin colour is just plain stupid. Nor is the reference to sports all that much better. We're talking about people changing their attitudes, lifestyles and worldview--this is something that can happen at any age. Your suggesting that someone who is gay can never change, that they are condemned to living that lifestyle; I disagree. Not everyone who tries will succeed, and those are the ones who go around saying that it can't be done, which people like you will readily believe.

I know what you mean by change. You just happen to be wrong. It is "just plain stupid" to think that homosexuality is simply about changing an attitude or a worldview. There is much more to it than that. Is your attraction to the opposite sex an attitude? Is it something that you see yourself being able to change on a whim? Yes, there are people who experiment with homosexuality and decide it's not for them. But for the vast majority of people, both homosexual and heterosexual, sexual orientation is not easily changeable or changeable at all. To call it an attitude is uninformed at best.