Dumbledore's Gay

[kengs333]

Oh, please. Chrisitianity didn't even emerge until 1500 years after the time we're talking about.

Oh, so now we're talking about a very specific time in history; I don't recall this previously being the case. As far as I'm concerned we're talking about the period around the time of Christ.

[g_bambino]

Oh, so now we're talking about a very specific time in history; I don't recall this previously being the case. As far as I'm concerned we're talking about the period around the time of Christ.

Yes, we were always talking about a specific era in history. By the time of Jesus, Greece had been under Roman control for a century and a half, long after notions of pederasty had already begun to morph, though it did still exist in some forms throughout the Roman Empire.

The point remains, though: until Christian thinking took root in the highly mysogynistic Mediterranean societies, they mostly considered men having extra-marital, homosexual, and/or pederast sex to be the norm from which others who didn't do these things would be deviant.

[GostHacked]

Keng333

Okay, the Bible quite clearly states that homosexuality, among other "sins of the flesh" are wrong; people who engage in these activities are sinners and unless they repent and "sin no more" will have to live with the consequences as stated in the Gospels. What constitutes sin and evil is defined by God; it is something as a Christian one has to abide by. It's not an "excuse" to be "intolerant".

Thank GOD I am not a Christian. The Rules do not apply to me!!! I guess that makes me both ignorant and intolerant?

[guyser]

Oh, no it's not, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd think so.................

Fine.

Show us your resource for making such a claim. Oh and by the way, no religious sites allowed.

[guyser]

QUOTE

Okay, the Bible quite clearly states that homosexuality, among other "sins of the flesh" are wrong; people who engage in these activities are sinners and unless they repent and "sin no more" will have to live with the consequences as stated in the Gospels. What constitutes sin and evil is defined by God; it is something as a Christian one has to abide by. It's not an "excuse" to be "intolerant".

That funny god , man he was some prankster. Apparently he decided to make gay being a sin, but actually he was joking around. He followed his true path with the animals.

He must have been fun at keggers.

Animals are gay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.p...;cat=gayanimals

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061...gay-animals.htm

[kengs333]

Yes, we were always talking about a specific era in history. By the time of Jesus, Greece had been under Roman control for a century and a half, long after notions of pederasty had already begun to morph, though it did still exist in some forms throughout the Roman Empire.

So in other words it existed in the ancient world irregardless of a specific era.

The point remains, though: until Christian thinking took root in the highly mysogynistic Mediterranean societies, they mostly considered men having extra-marital, homosexual, and/or pederast sex to be the norm from which others who didn't do these things would be deviant.

So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well. That point has already been established. What's deviant isn't relative; what a society considers to be normal is. Deviant sexual behaviour is always deviant. The ancient Greeks, etc. were aware of this.

[kengs333]

Keng333

Thank GOD I am not a Christian. The Rules do not apply to me!!! I guess that makes me both ignorant and intolerant?

The rules apply to everyone; it's a question of whether one abides by them or not.

[kengs333]

That funny god , man he was some prankster. Apparently he decided to make gay being a sin, but actually he was joking around. He followed his true path with the animals.

He must have been fun at keggers.

Animals are gay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.p...;cat=gayanimals

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061...gay-animals.htm

Oh, well, are those secular websites you're using as sources???? Sorry, what makes you think that they have any legitimacy if you don't want to accept "Christian" websites as valid sources?

[g_bambino]

Animals are gay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.p...;cat=gayanimals

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061...gay-animals.htm

Ah, those articles state that animals other than humans demonstrate homosexual behaviour. That does not necessarily make them "gay."

Though I understand why it happens, I don't think it helps the debate against the rigid parameters bandied about by Christians to throw out binary opposite, but equally limited, concepts.

[noahbody]

Some are saying JKR should have been more up front about Dumbledore's gayness. I agree.

When Harry asked him what he saw when he gazed into the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore should have replied, "Grindelwald Harry. Grindelwald and benoit balls."

[guyser]

Ah, those articles state that animals other than humans demonstrate homosexual behaviour. That does not necessarily make them "gay."

Though I understand why it happens, I don't think it helps the debate against the rigid parameters bandied about by Christians to throw out binary opposite, but equally limited, concepts.

All animals made in gods eyes yes or no ?

If yes, then why would god stop at humans when he gives both humans and animals the same things? Lungs, heart legs (or wings/flippers etc)

The rigid parameters bandied about by christians cannot exclude animals I would think.

[guyser]

Oh, well, are those secular websites you're using as sources???? Sorry, what makes you think that they have any legitimacy if you don't want to accept "Christian" websites as valid sources?

Umm....because they are science based ?

Christian websites are faith based . You needed me to tell you that?

Edited October 24, 2007 by guyser

[g_bambino]

So in other words it existed in the ancient world irregardless of a specific era.

So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well. That point has already been established. What's deviant isn't relative; what a society considers to be normal is. Deviant sexual behaviour is always deviant. The ancient Greeks, etc. were aware of this.

No, it's been established that men in certain parts of Ancient Greece engaged in heterosexual, homosexual and pederast acts. No exclusive link between homosexual behaviour and paedophilia has yet been ascertained, and would most likely not be as paedophilia isn't actually what we're discussing here, but pederasty instead.

Now, deviance can only be described relative to a benchmark that would be considered normal. If what's considered normal fluctuates, then what's considered deviant from that norm will correspondingly shift. Hence, yes, the Ancient Greeks had concepts of normal and deviant, of right and wrong, but as they commonly included pederasty in their sexual activities, then it was part of the accepted norm for sexual behaviour, and thus would have been seen as the right thing to do, not the wrong.

We contemporaries are perfectly entitled to look at the left evidence what those men did and decide if it was right or wrong, from our point of view. But, then again, their ideas of normal and deviant may knock holes in our present beliefs on the same subject. If our norm alters because of what we've learned from our predecessors, then so too will our deviances.

[bk59]

That's no excuse. I have reason not to answer you're questions, but in this case you don't.

So what are your reasons? If homosexuality is an absolute wrong, then it should be easy to answer that question. Saying that you don't have to answer anything, but everyone else does is pure hypocrisy.

Okay, the Bible quite clearly states that homosexuality, among other "sins of the flesh" are wrong; people who engage in these activities are sinners and unless they repent and "sin no more" will have to live with the consequences as stated in the Gospels. What constitutes sin and evil is defined by God; it is something as a Christian one has to abide by. It's not an "excuse" to be "intolerant". That's such a ridiculous assertion. Moreover, one cannot be "intolerant" of sin and sinful people; it is those who are sinful and evil who are intolerant--intolerant of good, intolerant of faith and virtue.

You can believe all of that, and I have no problem with you believing that, per se. What I have a problem with is people condemning others who do not share their religious beliefs. You condemn JKR for making Dumbledore gay, but you only base this on your beliefs. Why should anyone refrain from writing or saying what they want just because of your religious beliefs?

[g_bambino]

All animals made in gods eyes yes or no ?

If yes, then why would god stop at humans when he gives both humans and animals the same things? Lungs, heart legs (or wings/flippers etc)

The rigid parameters bandied about by christians cannot exclude animals I would think.

Oh, yes, they supposedly are. And I agree that there's really less difference than we think between humans and other creatures, when it comes to sex - even as "god" created them. But, "gay" and "straight" are relatively modern, and narrow, human constructs, and ones which actually, I think, play into the hands of fundamental religious groups of all sorts.

Edited October 24, 2007 by g_bambino

[guyser]

JKR is in TO and was asked many times why. She did say she always knew Dumbledore was gay but that it did not matter to the storyline.

The local news interviewed numerous kids about it, and pretty much to a person they answered "so what?"

Now, some of the parents were not so enlightened, and of course they had the church guy saying Satan is bad , Harry Potter is bad and to get the books out of kids hands.

Edited October 24, 2007 by guyser

[guyser]

Oh, yes, they supposedly are. And I agree that there's really little difference between humans and other creatures - even as "god" created them. But, "gay" and "straight" are relatively modern, and narrow, human constructs, and ones which actually, I think, play into the hands of fundamental religious groups of all sorts.

Fair enough.

Gay and straight, the labels yes, but the activity has been around as long as animals have been.I am not sure why this matters?

[g_bambino]

Fair enough.

Gay and straight, the labels yes, but the activity has been around as long as animals have been.I am not sure why this matters?

Uhhh... to prove that even dolphins and bonobo monkeys can fall prey to the temptations of Beelzebub as well?

Edited October 24, 2007 by g_bambino

[kengs333]

JKR is in TO and was asked many times why. She did say she always knew Dumbledore was gay but that it did not matter to the storyline.

The local news interviewed numerous kids about it, and pretty much to a person they answered "so what?"

Now, some of the parents were not so enlightened, and of course they had the church guy saying Satan is bad , Harry Potter is bad and to get the books out of kids hands.

What does the fact that almost every kid said "so what?" mean--it means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. And that's how it works. Always go after the kids. That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this.

[kengs333]

So what are your reasons? If homosexuality is an absolute wrong, then it should be easy to answer that question. Saying that you don't have to answer anything, but everyone else does is pure hypocrisy.

I never said I don't have to answer anything; I stated that I have reasons for not answering questions the YOU have posed.

[g_bambino]

What does the fact that almost every kid said "so what?" mean--it means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal.

And so you're angry because you weren't able to brainwash them first?

[kengs333]

Oh, yes, they supposedly are. And I agree that there's really less difference than we think between humans and other creatures, when it comes to sex - even as "god" created them. But, "gay" and "straight" are relatively modern, and narrow, human constructs, and ones which actually, I think, play into the hands of fundamental religious groups of all sorts.

First of all, the evidence for "homosexuality" among animals is extremely questionable. There is some evidence that that kind of behaviour occurs among animals that have become severely contaminated by pollutants. It's just another example of what toxins can do to organic life. I wouldn't take that as a sign that homosexuality is "natural" or that this is what God had intended his creations to become. Furthermore, it would appear that most of the people making claims of "homosexual" behaviour among animals do have a pro-gay agenda; from what I've read, they like to interpret animals leaning against one another, engaging in not understood by science movements between pairs of animals as having some sort of "sexual" conotation. One book that I read, in part, even went so far as to provide "evidence" in the form of drawings. LOL. Ultimately, it's pretty sad though that gay rights activists would use this as a means of furthering their cause. Animals engage in all forms of behaviours--infanticide, murder, copulating with offspring, etc. etc.--that humans (or at least Christians with their "narrow" definition of morality) consider wrong. Should humans follow the example of the animal kingdom in these respects as well?

[kengs333]

And so you're angry because you weren't able to brainwash them first?

When it gets to the point where the best you can do is make short, cheap off-handed remarks, perhaps you should just consider not posting. It's bad enough that you're whole argument boils down to if it wasn't for Christianity sexuality wouldn't be narrowly defined, homosexuality, pedophelia, etc. would be considered "normal".

[g_bambino]

First of all, the evidence for "homosexuality" among animals is extremely questionable. There is some evidence that that kind of behaviour occurs among animals that have become severely contaminated by pollutants.

Well, I'm not going to comment on what pollutants can do to animal conduct, but I can say that I've seen bonobos filmed in their native Congo, and they sure were engaging in some varying sexual activity for definitely non-procreative purposes.

I wouldn't take that as a sign that homosexuality is "natural" or that this is what God had intended his creations to become.

I think you could take the existent examples as a good hint that maybe our modern notions of human sexuality are actually quite limited.

Furthermore, it would appear that most of the people making claims of "homosexual" behaviour among animals do have a pro-gay agenda... Ultimately, it's pretty sad though that gay rights activists would use this as a means of furthering their cause. Animals engage in all forms of behaviours--infanticide, murder, copulating with offspring, etc. etc.--that humans (or at least Christians with their "narrow" definition of morality) consider wrong.

Strangely, I would have to agree with you on this. But, very often, scientific evidence is hijacked and manipulated by special interest groups into propagandist ammunition for a specific cause. Hence I have a hard time taking seriously someone who tells me penguins can be "gay" as much as I do someone who tells me AIDS is the evidence of God's punishing the "gays" (though, not gay penguins, apparently )

[g_bambino]

When it gets to the point where the best you can do is make short, cheap off-handed remarks, perhaps you should just consider not posting. It's bad enough that you're whole argument boils down to if it wasn't for Christianity sexuality wouldn't be narrowly defined, homosexuality, pedophelia, etc. would be considered "normal".

It's a valid question. You're clearly upset with the brainwashing the kids are currently receiving; I was only clarifying if you want to replace that brainwashing with your own biblical version.

I'm pleased you're getting the gist of my point, though; even if you do toss the paedophile word around a bit too much, and to little real effect. Christianity's teachings certainly have some observations worthy of merit, but the total strangulation of sexual behaviour really isn't one of them. We are, in Western society, I think, currently going through an awkward, adolescent emergence out of the sexual dark we previously kept ourselves in by adhering the teachings of the church; Rowling's recent announcement is, to me, but one example of this present naïveté: her announcement seemed like an irrelevant tack-on more driven by a desire to be hip and politically correct than to be challenging or observant in some way. It's all just people stumbling around, like a teenager, looking for an identity after discovering the old, singular, non-flexible one no longer fits.

Whatever I say would have happened had Christianity not become what it did would be nothing more than useless speculation on my part; so, don't pretend as though I did try to do that. All I can say, and have so far said, is in what way I understand that which came before, and how I see things now in relation to that. Deal with that instead of trying to extract from between the lines that which isn't actually there.

Edited October 24, 2007 by g_bambino