Dumbledore's Gay

[guyser]

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.

First it gives a slight insight to how the kid feels about a character in a fictional tale . It says they dont care and not bothered by it.

Brainwashed? That goes both ways , and thankfully, from my viewpoint, more are told the truth and science instead of the writings of a book from long ago that is full of faith but lacking any creditable science input.

Hitlers youth were told to believe without thinking and to have blind faith. Does that sound familiar?

Nobody is asking you to open your arms to any gay person. Nobody is denying you to believe what you want to. You can think that being gay is immoral relative to your perspective , as I can think otherwise from mine.

[Wilber]

Smart girl that Rowling, she sure knows how to manipulate a market. No wonder she is richer than the Queen. 12 pages of this stuff and counting. Amazing.

[guyser]

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.

Citation ?

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?

I guess if someone came up to you and your buddies with an arect penis and started rubbing it against your leg you could rightly ask him what toxins he has ingested....right? Thats what dolphins do. In large groups of males.

As for a pro-gay agenda , while it may seem that way , it is not the case. I will however stand up for abuse against gays, such as one who links pedos with homosexuality, one who denigrates the gay persons life by claiming they to be immoral, sick or twisted.

I am neither a true fan of football or soccer , but I will defend the sport against those who call it sissy and for women. I guess then by your logic I have a pro-soccer agenda? Funny how that loooks now doesnt it?

As far as infanticide, murder, copulating with offspring , I suppose I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you would know that those are criminal acts in this country and involves injury to a third party. Silly me.

But you cannot say that about two consenting males/females .

[Moxie]

I believe the Gay Community in Canada has to much power, regarding education in our schools.

An example: In Vancouver two homosexual males demanded to go through the standard curriculum to make sure it was "Gay Friendly" whatever that means. So they got their wish and are now being paid as consultants to go through text books and school subjects making sure the homosexual community doesn't find offense.

In England this is now standard practice, forcing Foster Parents to send children who don't even know if they are gay or are not gay to attend Gay Indoctorination Classes: Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...70&ito=1490

I don't believe Religion should be tought in the classroom, and leave homosexuality 101 in Health Class. I don't give a rat's ass what the gay community want's tought in our schools. England is a Socialist hellhole but really forcing straight children to go to Gay Classes or be hauled from their foster parent's care if the parents don't comply. Borg mentality from the useful idiots. This issue has gone from equality of homosexuals to superiority of Homosexuals tought in the classroom. My neice was forced to sit through a week of Gay this Gay that during Gay Pride week in school. What utter rot and nonsense, this isn't tolerance this is an indoctornation of an alternate lifestyle. It's not acceptable in schools, leave it in fiction.

If teaching Homosexual Lifestyles is acceptable then start teaching that Hetrosexual lifesytle is okay to. I demand children be given a week to celibrate the diversity (gag) of having both a Mom and Dad. It's a sad day in Canada when having a mother and a father (yep and you know who he is without DNA testing) is deemed unexceptable to the easily offended. How low will this group sink?

[guyser]

I believe the Gay Community in Canada has to much power, regarding education in our schools.

An example: In Vancouver two homosexual males demanded to go through the standard curriculum to make sure it was "Gay Friendly" whatever that means. So they got their wish and are now being paid as consultants to go through text books and school subjects making sure the homosexual community doesn't find offense.

At first blush I was in agreement (without the cite to read myself) however you mention you have no idea what they were attempting. Perhaps if gay friendly means removal of all untruths about gays , then I see no problem, although I have issue on who should do it, and no , not just two gay males.

I don't believe Religion should be tought in the classroom, and leave homosexuality 101 in Health Class. I don't give a rat's ass what the gay community want's tought in our schools. England is a Socialist hellhole but really forcing straight children to go to Gay Classes or be hauled from their foster parent's care if the parents don't comply. Borg mentality from the useful idiots. This issue has gone from equality of homosexuals to superiority of Homosexuals tought in the classroom. My neice was forced to sit through a week of Gay this Gay that during Gay Pride week in school. What utter rot and nonsense, this isn't tolerance this is an indoctornation of an alternate lifestyle. It's not acceptable in schools, leave it in fiction.

As to what is taught I agree. Health and religion class. No problem there. I find it hard to believe that the gay lifestyle is being promoted as superior. Nothing I have seen is that way. So some school admins went overboard? I dont agree they should have to sit thru gay this or gay that, unless of course it is a counter to the alternative.

It's a sad day in Canada when having a mother and a father (yep and you know who he is without DNA testing) is deemed unexceptable to the easily offended. How low will this group sink?

It would be a sad day. But it hasnt ocurred . As for how low this group will sink? Well, hyperbole can sink one in a hurry.

[cybercoma]

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.

Or you've been brainwashed and/or intimidated to believe that people are not allowed to love each other if they're of the same sex. "And that's how it works. Always go after the kids." Indoctrinate them early, tell them that questioning their "faith" is a test and if they don't believe in "Christ's" (feel free to exchange with Muhammad, or any other religious figure suits your fancy) teachings they'll suffer for all of eternity.

If you're in any catholic school in ontario today you could ask children what they think of God or Jesus, they all would say he's a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this.

Funny how your logic works, eh?

[cybercoma]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

That is a direct quote from the Bible that says homosexuals are to be put to death. I know the New Testament is what Christians follow, but the Old Testament is still included in any version of the Bible I've seen in hotel rooms. Jesus also said that he didn't come to change the old laws. (Matthew 5:17)

Clearly, Jesus preached a lot of great things (love thy neighbour and all that), but resorting to the Bible to tell you the difference between right/wrong or moral/immoral is a little ridiculous with all of the contradictions and blatantly horrific passages such as the Leviticus one above.

Christianity, all the major reigions really, have done little to nothing when it comes to guiding morality. The world is much more accepting and tolerant of various cultures, women and homosexuals at this point in history than any other. Has religious teaching changed? On the contrary, it's the only thing that has stayed the same.

Morality advances, society evolves, in spite of religion not because of it.

[cybercoma]

Oh and someone earlier posted amusing parts in the Bible where Jesus appears "gay", but they forgot perhaps the funniest example:

Mark 14:51-52 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked

[gc1765]

I can't believe this is even an issue. Who cares whether a character is gay or not? Do gay people get offended every time a character in a fictional book is straight?

[GostHacked]

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

But again, I must point out I am not a Christian. And I am not in Christianlandcountry. SO these so called 'rules' do not apply to me. I do not recognize the rules. For I am not a Christian. So, there is no point in trying to make me a Christian. I will never subscribe to any religion.

Just like there is no point trying to turn a homo straight. All your religion in the world cannot change then homo to going straight. The homo does not care. The homo just wants to live a normal productive life. At least most of the homo's I know. Some of these homos run companies, and very well. Some are politicians. Some are teachers. Some of the people you even know Keng333 are gay.

How do you deal with a long time friend that you have known since a child, what if that friend told you he was gay? What also if he told you, that he never wanted to tell you because he feels that you would not understand him, or never want to speak/deal with him again.

What if a relative told you they were gay? Would you hold up your bible and protest SINNER! ???

[Rue]

For what, disliking immorality and sexual deviance????

I am no sure how telling people you dislike yourself establishes any point you are otherwise trying to make.

[Rue]

Let's rpely to Keng shall we?

"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. "

Do you really think for one second someone is sitting down with children and showing them pictures of Elton John and repeating to them "gay is good or I will kill you gay is good or I will kill you" until they crack?

"And that's how it works. Always go after the kids."

Do tell us how you found this out. Do share with us your information.

You like to make sweeping generalized statements but provide no basis for them, don't you. "it means....that's how..always go after..."

And just where did you obtainyour insights. Do tell us the information you rely on to state so categorically and absolutely that;

1-being gay is "abornmal";

2-people are brainwashing children as to gays"

3-gays are involved in a conspiracy to recruit children.

"That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. "

You equate Gays to Nazis? You dare suggest gays are going around rounding up hetero-sexuals and sending them to concentration camps to exterminate them simply because they are straight? What a bigoted, hateful and idiotic thing to say.

Are you even aware the Nazis rounded up and exterminated gays? As we Jews were required to wear Stars of David they were forced to wear Pink Triangles. How dare you suggest people who were group murdered by Nazis are Nazis.

More to the point how dare you compare a gay to a Nazi.

Just what gives you the right to be so hateful against gays to dare suggest they go around mass exterminating people and preaching doctrines of hatred? Do you even know what a Nazi is and what they stood for?

"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"

Yes what a brilliant comparison. As we speak gays have taken over Canada. They have banned any opposition in Parliament and suspended the constitution. They have implemented a secret police force (gaystapo), as well as a special elite force(liSSp) devoted to their gay dictator (Stevie Harper)who runs the country. They go around rounding up hetero-sexuals in the night and ship them off to gas chambers or place them in work camps and starve them to death. They also invade countries and set up elaborate systems of collaboration with local gays to spy on and arrest and torture hetero-sexuals. Gay pride day parades-they are the Nurmberg rallies. The Ranbow flag-its as evil as the Nazi flag and swastika emblem. You figured it all out.

Someone needs to say this to you-you are spiteful and hateful of a group of people.

So the question must be asked of you. Since you feel it is acceptable to assign motive to all gays and make negative generalizations about all gays and display such sentiments openly-you establish the precedent that we can do the same about you, i.e., at least speculate on your motives.

What do you think compels you to make such statements? So when reading such hatred I find myself asking, just what feelings inside you are so conflicted they need to project such feelings outwords in the guise of dialogue but which in fact is simply you making statements based on your subjective feelings of hatred?

You want to display such feelings openly which target people for hatred then pay the price for that-and that is me and anyone else having to read your comments responding by stating in our subjective opinion just as you have yours, we think you express such feelings because you are nothing more then an angry sexually conflicted person so you project your confusion outwords and target gays because they trigger off something in you-that you are not comfortable with.

You want to call gays Nazis and suggest what there motives are, then I will do the same with you. How does it feel? How does it feel when you are treated the same way you treat gays? How does it feel when I say I think you are abnormal and are trying to force your sexual feelings on others?

How do you feel being told you are exactly what you accuse gays of?

Think its helpful?

psst, since no doubt you believe in God be careful now, I hear from good sources God is bisexual. Satan? From what I hear he sleeps with anything as well. Either way you may have a problem.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Rue

[g_bambino]

This issue has gone from equality of homosexuals to superiority of Homosexuals tought in the classroom.

I often regard the "gay activists" as being as equally closed-minded and fanatical as the religious right they fight against. Of course, the existence of one relies on the existence of the other; but, then, doesn't it follow that if one dissipated the other would too? Would there really be such a stink over a character in a kids' book if these groups didn't exist? Indeed, would Rowling have even felt any need to make one of her characters "gay" if, between The Church and The Gay Movement, "gay" hadn't been made into some kind of accepted new species?

I read in a book recently a phrase: "I am human, and nothing human is alien to me." It was said by Terence, a Carthaginian comic playwright in and about 200BC. Words we could all do well to give contemplation to some 2000 years later. It might just make "gay" adherents realise they are, and it's okay to be, partly "straight"; make "straight" adherents (read: the fundamentally religious) realise they are, and it's okay to be, partly "gay"; and everyone in between. I see fractures already in both The Gay Community and The Church; so they seem to be destroying themselves from within; it's been said that ideologies can only be destroyed by those that adhere to them, and I think it's pretty evident that both polar groups are undermining themselves with infighting, which, consequently, leads people to turn elsewhere for answers. But, Terence's words would do a pretty good job of dealing a death blow to the politics of sexual identity, which has got to be one of the most inane things Western culture has ever come up with.

If we'd avoided all that garbage, like numerous other cultures managed to do, there'd be no bloody "gay" Dumbledore or Gay Movement and Moral Purity Movement to fight about him.

[bk59]

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

Allow me to rephrase then. By telling me to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine, you are being a hypocrite.

I wonder why it is that you feel the need to single me out. The question is valid, no matter who asks it. And one would think that if you really feel that homosexuality is an "absolute wrong" you would want the chance to show why. One would think that you would want the chance to explain all of the ways in which homosexuality is harming our society.

Your refusal to do so indicates that you just want your religious beliefs to be adopted by society. Clearly you are allowed to hold that belief, but don't expect society to follow you just because you say so.

[ScottSA]

I read in a book recently a phrase: "I am human, and nothing human is alien to me." It was said by Terence, a Carthaginian comic playwright in and about 200BC. Words we could all do well to give contemplation to some 2000 years later.

Contemplating them and misinterpreting them are two different things. I sincerely doubt that Terence meant to embrace and accept all human behaviour. The sack of carthage, for one, is an emminently human endeavour, but I somehow doubt that Terece would have encouraged it as quite alright because of its humanness. What he meant to say is that he understands all human behaviour, not that he accepts all human behaviour by virtue of its humanness. If he meant the latter, he was a fool.

[buffycat]

I can't believe that this thread has gone for 13 pages.

Hello? This is a fictional character... good grief.

[g_bambino]

Contemplating them and misinterpreting them are two different things. I sincerely doubt that Terence meant to embrace and accept all human behaviour. The sack of carthage, for one, is an emminently human endeavour, but I somehow doubt that Terece would have encouraged it as quite alright because of its humanness. What he meant to say is that he understands all human behaviour, not that he accepts all human behaviour by virtue of its humanness. If he meant the latter, he was a fool.

Yes, of course. But, if we accept that all human behaviour is a part of each of us individually, then it comes to mean that what we accept and deny in ourselves is a matter of personal choice; not controlled, beyond our influence, by god or nature. This greatly undermines the arguments of those groups who say that "right" and "natural" are unconditional, and what they do, and don't do, absolutely conform to those absolutes. Did I imply I thought otherwise?

[August1991]

I often regard the "gay activists" as being as equally closed-minded and fanatical as the religious right they fight against.

Bambino, while you and I disagree markedly on the monarchy, I must admit that I often agree with you on other issues. I agree entirely with you here - and I admire your way of stating your case.

I was appalled when gay activists used the term "bigot" to describe people opposed to gay marriage. Many countries in the world - Sweden and the UK for example - do not have gay marriage and yet these are not countries of bigots. The abolition of slavery cannot be compared to the acceptance of homosexuality. Many fine people are not comfortable with homosexuality and oppose gay marriage.

For myself, I believe in "live and let live". IOW, tolerance goes both ways. (BTW, this forum and Black Dog's posts convinced me to be in favour of SSM whereas before I thought civil unions were enough.)

I can't believe that this thread has gone for 13 pages.

Hello? This is a fictional character... good grief.

NAGMT (Not another gay marriage thread).

We had many, many a few years ago. Maybe the popularity is due to the word "sex".

Edited October 26, 2007 by August1991

[bk59]

Clearly, Jesus preached a lot of great things (love thy neighbour and all that), but resorting to the Bible to tell you the difference between right/wrong or moral/immoral is a little ridiculous with all of the contradictions and blatantly horrific passages such as the Leviticus one above.

Christianity, all the major reigions really, have done little to nothing when it comes to guiding morality. The world is much more accepting and tolerant of various cultures, women and homosexuals at this point in history than any other. Has religious teaching changed? On the contrary, it's the only thing that has stayed the same.

Morality advances, society evolves, in spite of religion not because of it.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think it is actually quite true that Christianity has done a lot to advance morality. Much of that morality is still accepted by society at large today - concepts of love your neighbour, do not murder, etc. You may not think that Christianity originated these concepts, but it certainly advanced them. Of course Christianity has advocated other morals as well - no pre-marital sex, the "evils" of homosexuality, etc. These are less accepted in today's society, and perhaps that is the kind of morality you object to.

Something as complex as religion, particularly one like Christianity with so many different denominations, cannot be painted with one brush as being "bad" or "good". Particularly when different followers will read the exact same passages of scripture and react in entirely different ways. This goes for secular society as well. Secular society itself is not so much "bad" or "good". Members of secular society can perform both "bad" and "good" in the same way that members of a religion can.

[Frankie]

I agree with Kengs333. It was completely unnecessary for the auther to do that. Perhaps it was just for the publicity, but it's true that this sort of thing will affect the childrens views. And of course it's a fictional book, but not everyone (especailly children) are strong willed enough to decern the difference. I mean obviously a large portion of the population of Canada and the States allow themselves to be swayed by political election commercials and minute issues the electoral parties present, how can they be smart enough to defend themselves against this kind of moral suggestion. I just find her methods sneaky and underhanded.

[kengs333]

That is a direct quote from the Bible that says homosexuals are to be put to death. I know the New Testament is what Christians follow, but the Old Testament is still included in any version of the Bible I've seen in hotel rooms. Jesus also said that he didn't come to change the old laws. (Matthew 5:17)

People who piece together verses from the Bible like you just did are a dime a dozen; I've never been in a discussion about Christianity where it doesn't happen. Does it ever occur to you that all it does is indicate that you just don't understand the Bible? Did not Jesus stop the execution of a woman for committing adultry? Why did he do so?

Clearly, Jesus preached a lot of great things (love thy neighbour and all that), but resorting to the Bible to tell you the difference between right/wrong or moral/immoral is a little ridiculous with all of the contradictions and blatantly horrific passages such as the Leviticus one above.

That's right, Jesus did preach "a lot of great things". If you keep refering to Leviticus, and other "horrific passages" in the Bible as proof that the is something wrong with Christianity, then all you are doing is proving that you don't understand what is written in the Bible.

Christianity, all the major reigions really, have done little to nothing when it comes to guiding morality. The world is much more accepting and tolerant of various cultures, women and homosexuals at this point in history than any other. Has religious teaching changed? On the contrary, it's the only thing that has stayed the same.

Again, I really don't think you know what you're talking about. If you look at the time in which Christianity emerged, the world was full of sin. Ask anyone who studies ancient Rome what kind of a culture they had; they were hedonistic and barbaric, their polytheistic religion involved the slaghter of animals, prayer to demons, and other disgusting practices; women had virtually no rights, and could be nothing more than wives or whores; slavery--most of whom were non-Romans--was the norm. Christianity actually freed people from this. Let's not forget that the Roman put Christians to death, they murdered them and other people for sport.

Morality advances, society evolves, in spite of religion not because of it.

Morality never "advances". It either exists or doesn't, and there is no connection between the passage of time and an "advance" in morality. Getting back to a point where sexual deviance becomes normalized again is not progressive, it's regressive. There is never anything progressive about people who prefer to be governed by base instinct.

[kengs333]

I agree with Kengs333. It was completely unnecessary for the auther to do that. Perhaps it was just for the publicity, but it's true that this sort of thing will affect the childrens views. And of course it's a fictional book, but not everyone (especailly children) are strong willed enough to decern the difference. I mean obviously a large portion of the population of Canada and the States allow themselves to be swayed by political election commercials and minute issues the electoral parties present, how can they be smart enough to defend themselves against this kind of moral suggestion. I just find her methods sneaky and underhanded.

She claims to have laced the book with subtle suggestions of his being gay. That's how it goes. It's really no different than gradually poisoning someone by putting small amounts of arsnic in their food or drink, only that she's done it to tens of millions of young, innocent children.

[kengs333]

Oh and someone earlier posted amusing parts in the Bible where Jesus appears "gay", but they forgot perhaps the funniest example:

Mark 14:51-52 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked

I don't see how anything in those supposed verses can be construed as "gay". It's typical, though, isn't it, how things that are not gay are gayified. Two male friends walking down the street; a bunch of secular thugs standing on the corner start calling them gay for simply being two men walking down the street. That's what gay activists have done; they make everyone interpret everything as being gay, even when it's not.

Edited October 26, 2007 by kengs333

[kengs333]

You equate Gays to Nazis? You dare suggest gays are going around rounding up hetero-sexuals and sending them to concentration camps to exterminate them simply because they are straight? What a bigoted, hateful and idiotic thing to say.

Where did I say gays were Nazis? I'm suggesting that there are similarities in way that their respective ideologies crept into the psyche of their respective societies.

Are you even aware the Nazis rounded up and exterminated gays? As we Jews were required to wear Stars of David they were forced to wear Pink Triangles. How dare you suggest people who were group murdered by Nazis are Nazis.

I'm not sure they really were all that thorough in rounding up gays; labelling someone gay was a convenient way of finding an excuse to send them to the concentration camps--or to murder them outright. Do you remember the night of the long knives? Truth be told, it sounds as though there was a great deal of sexual deviance among the high ranking Nazis--not that they were evil or sinful as it was.

Well, just because a group of people was persecuted and victimized, doesn't mean that they themselves can't turn around and act the same way when they have control of a society. Israel is a perfect example of this, wouldn't you agree? Or what about all of those Jews who went along with the Soviets? Didn't the Soviets murder something like 30 million people?

There's nothing hateful in anything that I've written--you're just twisting things because I don't see things your way.

[jazzer]

No, I believe that that is the "proof" that was presented, but you should know that the verse does not exist in the Bible and is thought by most biblical scholars to come from a forged document. Nice try, but no cigar.

I don't know what bible you're using but the quote in question is in every bible I have. Easy to dismiss something that troubles or that contradicts your beliefs. How about a cite or two to back up your scholar's claim.

Edited October 26, 2007 by jazzer