So apparently during a questions/answer period following a talk at Carnegie Hall, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling revealed that Professor Dumbledore is gay.
Personally, I accept that homosexuality is as natural, healthy, and Divinely granted a trait as heterosexuality. Sure, it wasn't Adam and Steve(n), sure the Bible says 'abomination', but what I keep coming back to is that (1) if God made us all, he made us ALL, and (2) if God loves us all, he loves us ALL. Why can't we love each other?
Also, to all folks who compare homosexuals to pedophiles, I'd you to have a look at the sexual orientation of the last ten people you can find who were convicted of pedophilia or child pornography, or any other the thing you compare same-sex love to. ...was that enough time? What did you find?
Two people loving each other isn't terrible or disgusting only when they're opposite sex. It's an ironic statement about a society that condones heterosexuality with all its inherent gender conflicts, but condemns anyone seeking love and acceptance from a same-sex partner. Any two people loving each other is a beautiful and rare thing, and when any two people find each other who can love and care for each other throughout a lifetime, it's wondrous and joyful, regardless of the gender of those two people.
On Dumbledore...I could be wrong, but was there ever anything specific about his skin color? His hair color is white, and his eye color is blue, but are we sure he is Caucasion? What if, before the first movie had been cast, Jo had revealed that Dumbledore was in fact of African descent, and instead of Richard Harris, Sidney Poitier was the ideal man to play the troubled, fatherly old wizard? (Or Samuel L. Jackson..."It's the wand that says 'bad mother fucker' on it.") Just a thought, people.
The books are what they are, regardless of the backstories and histories the author envisioned for each character, and regardless of what she says about them now. As with every work of art, it will be viewed through the lens of the society that beholds it, in the context of the society that created it. As a fan, I applaud Ms. Rowling for answering a fan's question honestly. As a friend of gay people, I hope that the single largest effect this "revelation" has on us as a whole is to force us to examine our own hearts, our own presumptions about the world, and possibly, our own ignornace and prejudices.
Now, for your entertainment value, I present my responses to some comments following CNN's article:
* * *
jkarre wrote: "I do not want my young, impressionable child believing for one second that choosing that [gay] lifestyle is acceptable sometimes or any time. This is truly sad."
What is truly sad is the ignorance you are perpetuating in your children, and the hate they will pass onto anyone they meet who leads such a lifestyle, or any other kind aside from the one you've taught them to believe is right and moral. Shame on you and any parent who spreads intolerance.
* * *
William wrote: "If she really thought it was important, why didn't she incorporate it into the stories?"
Because it ISN'T important, any more than every character's implied HETEROsexuality is important in every other mainstream story, including this one. Anyone who's paid attention to a word Ms. Rowling's written or spoken about these characters will know that in order to create the HP world, she made them into real people with lives and pasts and issues--a necessary practice for any writer. This is especially necessary for Dumbledore, a central character mentioned hundreds of times in a composite story of seven volumes and thousands of pages.
* * *
Sue wrote: "The author's statement really makes the books and the movies deceptive and many parents wouldn't have bought the books nor let their children watch the movies had this come about sooner. Fortunately their was no outright homosexuality in the books or the movies to make matters worse."
Where is the deception? Was there some point in the text that secured your knowledge of Dumbledore's orientation as straight? If there was, I missed it. Also, where in any of the stories does any romantic relationship figure in, aside from husband/wife couples and teen crushes? Would you feel better if Ms. Rowling addended the novels now to include a list of women Dumbledore had been with in the past?
* * *
kat wrote: "JK rowling is an idiot." (and that's it)
Well look at the big brain on kat. Thanks for that wisdom.
* * *
D wrote: "You would have to go and ruin the Potter series by making the headmaster of the children's school gay. You disgust me now."
Do I really need to address this one? Poor D, such a victim. Think of all those wasted hours in seeming enjoyment and wonder! Imagine all the good quality stuff you could have been reading, instead of the evil, terrible gaymongering Harry Potter series!
* * *
Kirk wrote: "...the promotion of homosexuality in a children's book, even indirectly, is terrible. We already promote sex as something to do with whomever and whenever you feel like, to further teach our children that it's ok to be gay and that it's 'normal' is shameful. It's far from normal and everyone knows it."
Normal, healthy, unhealthy. What is healthy is knowing and being who you are without pretenses or falseness, especially based on fear of someone else's reaction. What's unhealthy is pretending to be something you're not, trying to live up to someone else's ideals of how your life should lived.
The concept of "normal" is the only one I vaguely identify with, but only as it comes to mean "average," "acceptable," or "socially ubiquitous." Guess what else is considered normal? Prejudice and hate.
* * *
Joe Smith wrote: "This subject does NOT need to be addressed in a book for this audience!"
Guess what, Joe, it wasn't addressed in any Harry Potter book. It is never implied, alluded to, referenced, or even (though you seem maybe to have thought so) denied.
* * *
bliss wrote: "wow on top of witchcraft now we add homo stuff wow its sad the series is over sales would have been lower"
i know bliss wow terrible that such an already sinful series of awful stuff makes the novelist the richest woman in england wow and now she decides to double the insult wow for shame (response edited to be better understood to the target individual)
* * *
Xysea wrote: "It doesn't change a thing. He's a beloved character no matter his sexual preference. Seriously, we've come much farther than that as a society. Haven't we? Haven't we??!!"
I'm afraid, Xysea, that we have not.