J.K. Rowling Outs Dumbledore

  • Thread starter Thread starter Urf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apryl said:
Characters in novels do not have souls, so his is not even in question.

We can only react based upon what we were told in those pages were events that took place. In the entire set of books, never did Dumbledore act on his homosexuality.

I think that if we knew a person that may have been ‘homosexual’, but never acted on their homosexuality, and they had souls, we would do well to be tolerant of them.

There inaction, and not making a spectacle of themselves or their lifestyle, would have not affect on society.

(The woman is a billionaire because she knows how to weave story. That’s why we are discussing some throw-away comment she made months after the book was finished)
Click to expand...
But to say absolutely nothing about just being homosexual leaves younger people thinking they are all alone witht this problem and take desperate measures to end their lives because of it. We can’t let that happen so some of us speak out on it w/o necessary making a “spectacle” of ourselves.
 
Homosexuality is disordered and thus a person with this inclination needs therapy. Having a pathology is not sinful, but it hinders normal emotional and social development. But how would anyone know one is homosexual unless one had acted on it?

Of course the whole thing is fiction, but stories have a way of powerfully influencing the imagination of the readers, for good or for ill.
 
CathCentrist said:
Catholic hypocrisy 101

Keep your mouth shut and opiions to yourself - that is unless they are in line with the status quo… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Haven’t you got anything better to add than just crying hypocrisy? Rowling has a lot of power with every word she speaks, just from sheer popularity - is it really hypocritical for me to disagree with the way she has pulled Dumbledore out of the closet? What was the need for her to do it, and what were her motives?

But yes, I think she should’ve kept quiet about it. Celebrities take so many liberties with their fame to spread their personal opinions. The thing is, I don’t hear too many of them standing up and saying they disagree with gay relationships, or that they think gay people should remain celibate - it’s always just the opposite. There seems to be a double standard with what people can and will say.

Fact is, there were no certain hints to this in the books (unless you want to read into some things Dumbledore says, such as when he tells Harry that Gindelwald ‘inflamed’ him, etc.), but Rowling has obviously said this for a reason. Maybe she was just innocently answering a kid’s question…or maybe she knew exactly what she was saying, and exactly what it would mean to people.

I just find it strange that so many people are taking for granted that this isn’t going to have some influence over people. This is a huge series - people spend hours of every week discussing and debating all things Harry Potter, and writing fan fiction on it…I for one refuse to underestimate how much impact this can have on people. Millions of kids and adults worldwide have bought the books.
estesbob said:
Actually its unless they are line with my opinions.😃
Click to expand...
I don’t think my opinions are above anyone else’s, or that I’m right by default and everyone who disagrees is wrong. However, I am surprised that two people in a row would resort to labelling me a hypocrite, and a third would say I’m not open to objection. Maybe you could address what you didn’t like about my post, rather than resorting to name calling and pettiness?
 
Leeta said:
Homosexuality is disordered and thus a person with this inclination needs therapy. Having a pathology is not sinful, but it hinders normal emotional and social development. But how would anyone know one is homosexual unless one had acted on it?

Of course the whole thing is fiction, but stories have a way of powerfully influencing the imagination of the readers, for good or for ill.
Click to expand...
That homosexual tendencies are disordered is correct, but it is your opinion that people with such tendencies need therapy. This is not always the case, and the Church does not mandate it. The CCC says that homosexuals are called to live chastely – just as heterosexuals do – and that means celibacy if they are unable to overcome their inclinations.

Furthermore, one need not indulge one’s same-sex attraction in order to know one is homosexual, just as a heterosexual need not have sex in order to know he/she is heterosexual.

Peace,
Dante
 
John Granger’s response to the announcement is finally posted on his website. For those of you who don’t see why J.K. Rowling decided to make this announcement at this point in time (or at all), or who think that it was simply a publicity stunt, Granger makes it pretty clear that is not the case. Suffice to stay the media response to this announcement was both laughably disproportionate and dishonestly biased.

The bottom line is, there is absolutely no argument for the morality of homosexual sex or dating relationships between members of the same sex anywhere in the Harry Potter books or in J.K. Rowling’s comments on them. There isn’t even a hint of such an argument. The only homosexual relationship mentioned in the entire series ends in murder and destruction.

God bless, anyway.
 
Who says Dumbledore was celibate? It never said in the book that he was a homosexual, and it certainly never said he was celibate either. There are a lot of assumptions being made here.
Click to expand...
He’s celibate. If he was horribly, terribly let down by Grindelwald, there is no actual evidence, anywhere, of his having homosexual sex during the course of the book, and even Rita Skeeter’s The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore was completely ignorant of Dumbledore’s same-sex attractions, it’s absolutely most reasonable to conclude he was celibate.
 
Rowling is brilliant! Dumbledore being gay gives the books an even more powerful message than before! And the way she announced it was perfect. Dumbledore is many peoples favorite character in the series. We see that he is extremely good and powerful and wise. Basically, he is a very successful and a normal person just like everyone else(except for having magic, but that is considered normal in the series). When Rowling announced that DUmbledore is gay, then we see that gays are people, like everyone. He is a person, not some ruthless animal that SOME people in the churches make gays out to be.

In the HP series, there is discrimination over what type of blood you have(pure, half, mud). But we all see that it does not matter what type of blood you have, because some great wizards have been mudbloods. Well, this now has a metaphoric meaning. Pure=straight, half=bisexual, and mud=gay. So, the message is this: It does not matter what your sexual preferences are, because you can still be one of the greatest people in the world.

And really, I’m tired of the Catholic Church saying “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” when they can’t even do it themselves…Really, you people gotta give others who don’t share your sexual preferences more respect. And you are losing a lot of followers over this matter…why would someone be a gay Catholic when being gay is an abomination to God, when you are Catholic?
 
Urf said:
Can I ask how you were a witch for so many years, and even after turning away from it you still seem to be under the impression that sorcery or magic exists?
Click to expand...
It does…There is a show on TV that has to do with psychic’s and scientifically testing their powers. You might consider that magick. Or you can do a spell to make a positive change in your life…but then you won’t know whether it was coincidence or actual magick. One sure way to make you believe is summon a demon, but this is so stupid I can’t even tell you how stupid it is to do…but that’d prove it to you.

If you are Catholic, then I would not be talking against magick…You believe that the priest performs a ritual that turns bread and wine into flesh and blood. How is that not considered magick?
 
Leeta said:
Homosexuality is disordered and thus a person with this inclination needs therapy. Having a pathology is not sinful, but it hinders normal emotional and social development. But how would anyone know one is homosexual unless one had acted on it?

Of course the whole thing is fiction, but stories have a way of powerfully influencing the imagination of the readers, for good or for ill.
Click to expand...
Totally untrue and contrary to the teachings of the Church. They call it a disorder but do not require one to be in therapy as it does not need to be changed.
 
All she did was to give in to pressure from the gay agenda to have a homosexual character in her books, just the same as the tv people are pressured to have gay characters on the prime time tv shows. In my opinion, it’s all a purpose-driven agenda by the gay rights people. Anybody that doesn’t believe they have an agenda, has their head in the sand. OK, let me have it!!
 
estesbob said:
California passed a law that you could not use any terms that could be considered offensive be to hold slew of minority groups one which was homosexuals. Opponents of the law claim that using the words mother and father and husband-and-wife could be construed as criticism of homosexuals or as excluding them. The law is just went into effect and nobody knows whether this is true or not
Click to expand...
Please. Everyone knows “whether this is true or not,” and the answer is… not. Just read the bill. I am not a fan of any hate crime or hate speech legislation. But to interpret this to mean you can’t use ordinary traditional terms like mother or father is simply wrong. It also outlaws speech and actions that is offensive to the handicapped, and btw, to religious persons. So the fact that it includes homosexuals no more means that you can’t say “father” than that you can’t comment on what an athlete someone is for fear of ‘offending’ the handicapped. You can’t call a gay person a “fag” and you can’t call a Catholic a “Papist”. The law covers both.

Also, I take everything the worldnet daily says with the same grain of salt I take for liberal mouthpieces like the NYT. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong, but for both right and wrong are subservient to supporting a point of view.
 
Thank you all for your responses. My take on it is that it’s not a sin to be homosexual, because that’s the way God made the person; however, it is a sin to engage in homosexual activities, as the Church makes it very clear in that regard. I’m of the opinion that gays and lesbians have a bigger cross to carry, because of just that.

In the books, Rowling makes no mention of Dumbledore acting on his homosexual tendencies, so as far as we know, no sins have been committed by Dumbledore, as far as that’s concerned. If anything, Dumbledore should probably be commended for not succumbing to those tendencies and remaining celibate as an alternative.

Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
Brigadier said:
I don’t think my opinions are above anyone else’s, or that I’m right by default and everyone who disagrees is wrong. However, I am surprised that two people in a row would resort to labelling me a hypocrite, and a third would say I’m not open to objection. Maybe you could address what you didn’t like about my post, rather than resorting to name calling and pettiness?
Click to expand...
Did you miss the:D behind my post?
 
blacktiger:
And really, I’m tired of the Catholic Church saying “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” when they can’t even do it themselves…Really, you people gotta give others who don’t share your sexual preferences more respect. And you are losing a lot of followers over this matter…why would someone be a gay Catholic when being gay is an abomination to God, when you are Catholic?
Click to expand...
I think your wrong here. Being “gay” doesn’t mean you are an abomination to God. Acting upon your temptations is a mortal sin. Many reasons but heres 1: the Church does not reconize homesexual marriage. Thus sex outside of marriage is a sin. JUST LIKE for a straight person.

Homesexuals can choose to live a celibate life and still be in line with the Church. I know how hard it is to say know to your heart/mind/libido. But you need to say yes to God.

I have many homosexual friends and they are wonderful people. But they live a sinful life, just like my unmarried straight friends. They need prayer and love.
 
Transformer said:
He’s celibate. If he was horribly, terribly let down by Grindelwald, there is no actual evidence, anywhere, of his having homosexual sex during the course of the book, and even Rita Skeeter’s The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore was completely ignorant of Dumbledore’s same-sex attractions, it’s absolutely most reasonable to conclude he was celibate.
Click to expand...
Oh that’s a good point. He was living a homosexual lifestyle Rita Skeeter or shortly would’ve gotten in her book. Or perhaps he had borrowed Harry’s invisibility cloak. I next time I see a beetle wearing glasses all I ask her
I
 
goofyjim said:
But to say absolutely nothing about just being homosexual leaves younger people thinking they are all alone witht this problem and take desperate measures to end their lives because of it. We can’t let that happen so some of us speak out on it w/o necessary making a “spectacle” of ourselves.
Click to expand...
Now that is what I mean by gross overreaction.
 
Okay, first off, I am relatively sure that everyone here realizes that Harry Potter is fiction and Dumbledore is a fictional character. There is no need to endlessly remind people of this fact: no one is arguing otherwise.

The fact is, books (even fiction) have the power to influence people a great deal. Especially books like Harry Potter which is now one of the best selling series of books of all time! People’s concerens should not be so calously disregarded with a “lighten up.”

I have not yet read the Potter books, though I probably will in the near future. I have no doubt that Dumbledore’s sexuality does not come up in the books. The problem comes in when people (and children) hear this, it will change the way they read the books and people will read this fact into the books. I know that I won’t be able to read the books without thinking about it.

Certainly, we can do our best to keep this detail from our children. But not everyone will be able to do so and word does get around.

Certainly, we Catholics can use this as a teaching moment to tell our children about the difference between SSA and acting on it. But not everyone will do this. And there was no clarification by Rowling. Is Dumbledore celibate out of moral conviction or merely out of circumstance? IMO, there is a big difference.

Books like Harry Potter have a tremendous influence on people. I think it is a mistake to casually dismiss it as “just fiction”.

I’m really not anti-Potter, though. For myself, I can ignore this detail. I do worry about it’s effect on the culture at large, though.
 
davy39 said:
All she did was to give in to pressure from the gay agenda to have a homosexual character in her books, just the same as the tv people are pressured to have gay characters on the prime time tv shows. In my opinion, it’s all a purpose-driven agenda by the gay rights people. Anybody that doesn’t believe they have an agenda, has their head in the sand. OK, let me have it!!
Click to expand...
Well you could be right. There might be all sorts of hidden sexual perversity in these books. Personally Ive always wondered about the time Umbridge spent in the woods with the Centaurs …
 
KCtheMommy said:
Yeah I thought I was done this thread but this question had me wondering. What state has outlawed the use of these “terms?”
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, sorry, it’s California. When this thread got moved I haven’t been keeping up with it. Just all these little jabs, constantly, pushing pushing pushing the normalization of homosexuality 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top