# Dumbledore is Gay!!!



## shackleton (Oct 21, 2007)

Dumbledore is gay, 'Harry Potter' author reveals - CNN.com

Being gay is becoming very popular. Every new show has a gay character in it. I guess this is a way to slowly desensitize the world to gay people and view it as a normal way of life.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 21, 2007)

Yet another substantiation from the Lord for my banning of the Harry Potter effluvia.

I won't say I have not been tempted - even by the endorsement of board members  - as an avid reader of SciFi & Fantasy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2007)

It looks like Rowling's just wants to make Christians upset if the reporters conclusions are correct. 


> Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Yet another substantiation from the Lord for my banning of the Harry Potter effluvia.
> 
> I won't say I have not been tempted - even by the endorsement of board members - as an avid reader of SciFi & Fantasy.



I am wondering if the books reveal this or if it is just in the mind of Rowlings.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 21, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It looks like Rowling's just wants to make Christians upset if the reporters conclusions are correct.
> 
> 
> > Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.



Wow, she's a "prophetess", too!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 21, 2007)

I find it hard to believe that a dead guy, Richard Harris--a guy who played "Cromwell" of all things--is gay.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 21, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter;



> I am wondering if the books reveal this or if it is just in the mind of Rowlings.



That is what is odd about the whole thing...there is NOTHING in the books or movies that would
even cause one to wonder about this...

In only one of the movies do they have a dance, but even in that..nothing points to anything
one way or another as far as the character's go..except for maybe one of the young men having 
a crush on one of the girls..but as far as other characters...nothing is implied one way or another..

So as far as I'm concerned...to even bring it up is rather misplaced..and irrelevent to the theme of the story at all...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 21, 2007)

BJClark said:


> PuritanCovenanter;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ditto. There is nothing in the book to reveal this. Rowling essentially admitted that she read fan-fiction and let it determine what Dumbledore was.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2007)

What I don't understand is why anyone would ever say anything negative about the greatest author of this century, who has obviously had the greatest impact of any writer (except perhaps {insert genuflection} The Most Super Duper Rev. NT Wright) this millennium.

Obviously, this announcement has nothing to do with the story, the fact that Rowling is most sincere of Christians that we all could learn from, or the fact that her prose is superior to Milton, Shakespeare and Dickens.

Sheesh.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 21, 2007)




----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 21, 2007)

I was just defending Richard Harris, the most awesome actor from "Cromwell."


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 21, 2007)

I forgot to add a premise that will probably be missed otherwise: Richard Harris played Dumbledore in the movies.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 21, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I forgot to add a premise that will probably be missed otherwise: Richard Harris played Dumbledore in the movies.



Thanks for that. I was raking my slow brain trying to resolve a non sequiter.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 21, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot to add a premise that will probably be missed otherwise: Richard Harris played Dumbledore in the movies.
> ...



Err...he played Dumbledore until he died. I don't know who played Dumbledore in the latest movie.


----------



## clstamper (Oct 21, 2007)

Don't you see? The kid's life is awful until he discovers the great masters who understand secret teachings, which are beyond the abilities of most people. Once he masters the technology involved, he overcomes his fear and gains control of the world around him. This is Enlightenment rationalism with wands and fairy dust. It combines two spirits of our age -- gnosticism and technocracy. Am I the only one to notice this?


----------



## Richard King (Oct 21, 2007)

I also suspect the lion in the Wizard of Oz


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 21, 2007)

Richard Harris played Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore in the first two films. Michael Gambon handled the role in the last three and will reprise it in next year's Half-Blood Prince (2008). Gambon, notoriously secretive about his private life married in his early twenties, had a son, and is now living with his girlfriend who supposedly presented him with a son earlier this year.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 21, 2007)

Fred: LOL!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2007)

I am wondering if Rowling's is priming the pump to introduce the next movies revelation about Rowling's characters. I am willing to bet it is something the film Makers want to introduce, after the fact that there is no such revelation in the books.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 21, 2007)

Never was interested in the books in fact I always thought of them as "gay" in the slang sense and now know that they truly are in the literal sense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 22, 2007)

I liked the movies and bought the DVD's. My youngest son read the first book. I thought they were good movies. Especially when it comes to teaching about friendships. 

And I don't like the term gay being used the way you used it Travis. It really doesn't fit since the thing you are describing isn't as horrendous as the sin you are calling it. Hyperbole isn't necessary here. Just my humble opinion


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 22, 2007)

Jacob, while I applaud your defense of Harris (I too really enjoyed the movie), I find it tough to do so when he has such a girlie hairstyle in the film. Pageboy haircut on the Lord Protector of England just takes away the fire...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Never was interested in the books in fact I always thought of them as "gay" in the slang sense and now know that they truly are in the literal sense.



The books aren't gay. See above comments.


----------



## shackleton (Oct 22, 2007)

Richard King said:


> I also suspect the lion in the Wizard of Oz



When my wife and I view shows and movies from when we were growing up we can see plainly now the very "gay" figures that were not apparent then. They were just flamboyant. Now there are a lot of characters who could "come out of the closet."


----------



## jbergsing (Oct 22, 2007)

I've never read the books, but I have seen the movies (I'm not interested in it enough to waste my time with the books) so I am limited by what the director puts in the film. Thus far, there has been nothing to hint of Dumbledore's sexuality. Nothing! It is a non-topic. This leads me to believe one of two things: Either the author, for whatever reason, is simply trying to drum up support from the gay community and/or she is preparing fans for what the director is going to do with the movie.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Yet another substantiation from the Lord for my banning of the Harry Potter effluvia.
> 
> I won't say I have not been tempted - even by the endorsement of board members  - as an avid reader of SciFi & Fantasy.






The word of God says: "Do not allow a sorceress to live" (Ex. 22:18). Such wizzardry should not be condoned by Christians.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another substantiation from the Lord for my banning of the Harry Potter effluvia.
> ...



But Jesus got rid of that law.  That was for the Old Testament. Israel was a theocracy. We are under grace now.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > jdlongmire said:
> ...



 You mean we are now allowed to be wizards and witches?


----------



## Civbert (Oct 22, 2007)

OK, let's think about this. 

No where in the Harry Potter series of books does Dumbledore claim to be gay. Nothing in the books make it necessary that he is gay. And supposedly, there will be no more books in the series. So within the limits of the Harry Potter universe, can anyone (including the author) claim for a fact that Dumbledore is gay? 

I say no! 

It is only Rowling's opinion that Dumbledore is gay. As long as she has not added to the universe of Harry Potter by writing additional books that demonstrate conclusively that Dumbledore is in fact gay, then it remains her opinion and nothing more. The universe of Harry Potter is limited to the 7 book series and nothing more.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am wondering if Rowling's is priming the pump to introduce the next movies revelation about Rowling's characters. I am willing to bet it is something the film Makers want to introduce...





jbergsing said:


> This leads me to believe... she is preparing fans for what the director is going to do with the movie.





I am of this same opinion. But to what end? The only thing I can come up with is that the gay lobby is insisting that all of Hollywood's output reflect their own twisted world view.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

Reading any amount of literature involves reading about a great deal of immorality: the Greeks worship idols, glorify homosexual love, make human sacrifices, commit adultery and whatnot: Shakespeare has people resorting to seers, sleeping around, murdering one another, and so on. The authors of great literature have often been very immoral people. I don't think Harry Potter is great literature, but its enjoyable reading with a redeemably profound plot, and as for homosexuality it is simply irrelevant to the books. The author being a sinner in need of saving grace just like the author of _Brave New World_ (except that <_Brave New World_ is great literature), and saying ridiculous and unnecessary sinful things, doesn't change that.

The Bible is talking about real witchcraft. Not waving a magic wand and fighting three headed dogs. Or changing Cinderella's old dress into a new one. Tolkien also writes about wizards. For that matter A. A. Milne writes about talking stuffed animals. Where does Piglet get the _power_?

If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2007)

My thoughts from the post above are more or less confirmed by this article on Fox News:



> "Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site The Leaky Cauldron: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (book 7), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie 5) news, images, videos, podcast and more, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."
> 
> "'DUMBLEDORE IS GAY' is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it's certainly not what I expected," added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, N.J. "(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights."
> 
> ...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 22, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.



Hmm, I am skeptical of this logic - where the author has *explicity and knowingly* called offense to the people of Christ and to the law of God - I would say that is a discriminating issue.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 22, 2007)

Rowling has taken quite a bit of flak from Christians for the occultic overtones of her magical world of Harry Potter. Sticking it to them (us) one more time with the gay comment will simultaneously endear her to the socio-left and make a martyr out of her when she gets attacked by religious conservatives. Sounds like a pretty shrewd move by her.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 22, 2007)

Eh, children are being indoctrinated about homosexuality and this is just another step to blowing the door wide open on the issue, this may be her shrewd way of insuring her books become required reading in Western classrooms, on account to their socially active stances and "diversity" naturally.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 22, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.
> ...



Like Paul said, to disassociate with those who profane God's law we would have to go out of the world. We can't do that. I don't see how her attitude toward Christ has anything to do with our reception of her literature.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 22, 2007)

It is obvious that Rowling simply wanted to be mentioned on the Puritanboard so she did what she could to make here, she craves our attention, perhaps even our prayer.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 22, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.




This is a very good point, Heidi, and we Christians should not reject all non-Christian literature.

That said, the difference between those authors you cite and Rowling is that they could write, whereas she cannot.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

(smiles) Actually, I haven't been able to read her in print, though I've tried. I really enjoy her on audiobook while doing something else; but I don't find her writing -- rewarding enough for the concentration of reading. But then my husband who's every bit the schnob I am can more than stand to read her in print (my brother in law has nicknamed me a 'Harry Potter widow') even though he recognizes she isn't the next Milton....


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 22, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.



Actually, no. And to be better than 90% of fantasy literature, is like saying cardboard tastes better than 90% of inedible food.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.
> ...



I used to want to write Fantasy simply because I knew it would be better than most. I never got around to it, though. I was 15 or so. Still think I could have pulled it off.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 22, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.



Heidi, I certainly understand your point - I have read and enjoyed authors such as Issac Asimov, Piers Anthony, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein - all of which excited my young imagination, yet as their writings integrated more and more references to the things that God calls abomination, I laid them aside. Today, I find myself with a son that has an appetite for SciFi/Fantasy, just as I did, so I am able to use that experience to guide him through the "minefield" of pagan literature - to the degree I have influence on him. I dunno, it just seems that there are too many caveats associated with this woman and her writings for me to feel comfortable introducing them into my family. Too much risk for so little reward, In my humble opinion. (Emphasis on the *O*)


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

JD I sincerely respect your conscientiousness. Right now I don't have kids to worry about.

I think her plot and characters, and her sense of humor are what she had going for her story, that made it a good _story_ in spite of the quality of the writing. Certainly she doesn't compete with Lewis, T. H. White, Chesterton, Nesbitt, Charles Williams -- who isn't so much a good writer but still manages to be an amazing one; with Stephen R. Donaldson more contemporaneously -- somewhat the same; and Tolkien (though I think Tolkien's translations of early English poetry may be better than his fantasy: "Pearl" is really beautiful and very intricate). I haven't read much more fantasy.... Except Madeleine L'Engle and some Raold Dahl, both of whom were better writers, again, though not top tier.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 22, 2007)

ah! Donaldson - I couldn't even *look* at white gold for years without getting depressed...


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

I couldn't read it for a few years after we had it, it was so painful.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 22, 2007)

...exquisite, in a way...I don't think I could reread it.

Do you really consider Rowling to be on his par?


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 22, 2007)

No no no. No. No.

(edit: no. She doesn't compete with the other fantasy authors I've read, even Engle or Dahl as a writer; and Donaldson is way out of her class -- yes rather exquisite as you say. Sort of like something set precariously sideways: you keep wondering if it will fall and break -- how can he write _so well[i/] and not better? I haven't read I suppose enough bad fantasy because she's actually at the bottom percentage of what I've read.)_


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 22, 2007)

oh, ok  - was* really* starting to feel like I had _missed out_! 

thank you for clarifying!


----------



## Poimen (Oct 25, 2007)

Time magazine has an interesting take here:

Outing Dumbledore - TIME

Though (presumably) writing from a secular the author points out that none of this 'startling' revelation makes any sense with regards to the character as we have known him from the beginning.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 25, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.
> ...



 That was great (and my wife and I actually like the first several Potter movies...for eye candy)


----------

