plus it would give the religious nutjobs more reason to burn her in effigy while sprinkling holy water on the books and scourging themselves

My friends were already planning a "There are gay characters in Harry Potter" float for the pride parade, and then this happens! They're stoked. (And psychic?)

Maybe she should have then in light of the ending *replaces stupid epilogue with dumbledore revelation*

Some link Veonira put on the other thread

Man, I wonder if you'd get so many people freaking out about homosexuality and abominations and "ruining the series" in the comments from every country. It's easy to forget how progressive and rational a lot of people still AREN'T. Just check out some of the people writing at the end there.

Later in the conference, Rowling announced that Draco was allergic to shellfish, and Hermoine was a Libra and disliked Provolone cheese.

These things and others will be revealed in an appendix to the Potter series entitled, "Things the Author Arbitrarily Decided About Her Characters That Have No Impact on the Story So Everyone Can Just Calm Down, Thanks."

Some so-called "Christians" really need to take a page out of the Bible and actually read it sometime.

Then they should probably be oh-so-gently reminded that the Bible is, in fact, an historical document written by (inspired or not) men 2000+ years ago.

Back then people weren't supposed to eat pork, according to the same book of the Bible, and yet millions of Christians eat pork (certainly any Jewish person keeping kosher isn't buying all that bacon!).

I mean, come on. This is the same chapter that states,

19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

So why are Christians wearing fabric blends, eh? eh?

Yeesh.

I find it entirely likely that it was "arbitrarily decided", but it seems like the point was to finally reveal a plot "difference" that really makes no difference whatsoever and watch people freak out about it anyway, even though they loved the guy before then.

On a completely unrelated note, though, I have to say I've lost all respect for her after that mollusc-prejudiced . Like hell am I ever reading one of her books again.

Not to turn this into a Jewish/Christian theological discussion, but it's a fairly main point in Christian theology that the Torah, which is the Jewish law, doesn't apply to people who are not Jews, including themselves.

Really? I thought of it as a great leap forward for marine animal rights.

That's not really the point of this thread, but if that is a genuine question and you'd like a real answer for why Christians don't do those things anymore, send me a private message and I'll fill you in on some other parts of the Bible and Christian theology that you seem to be missing.



I agree. It isn't so much whether or not Dumbledore is gay, it is that the information has absolutely nothing to do with the story. It doesn't change anything in any way, it isn't really even very strongly hinted-at in the story. If this were an important part of the story, ultra-conservatives would have boycotted even more than they did, but it's not. So, why bother now? My opinion is that it was just for more publicity - she likes being in the spotlight and enjoys controversy.

Back on your unrelated note...what is the mollusk-prejudiced you're talking about?

Nah, I went to a Catholic school for 7 years, and Sunday school from 1st-5th grade. I have a handle on theology pretty well. It's not so much "missing" as "disagreeing with the fact that violently anti-homosexual Christians will, nearly without fail, point at Leviticus as the justification for their beliefs." (Which, actually, answers Demetrios' comment as well, whee). That said, unlike my aunt I am an historian by nature and major, not a theologian; I've always looked at religious books less for what they could teach me about religion than about what they could teach me about the historical opinions, views, teachings, etc about human beings. This, of course, infuriated my teachers in high school

My comment was mostly prompted by the link by Shiri in this thread, posted by Veonira in a different thread ("Weird News"), in which a number of people commented in a near-to-foaming-at-the-mouth vein that they were going to burn the books because omg Dumbledore is gay. Seriously, reading some of those comments is a trip.

And the answer to all of this is still, "who cares? He's Dumbledore and he's not real." Certainly I wouldn't hold a stray comment made by an author up as the end-all and be-all of gay rights or some such.

Down with mollusc prejudice!

I hardly thinks she needs publicity or controversy (though she may like being in the spotlight--I don't know). However, I think more likely is that these characters she wrote and developed have taken on a life of their own in her psyche. I bet she has tons of background on each of them, whether in notes or just in her mind, and now that the series is over she's feeling a little hollow that no one will ever get to know them as she does. So for those who ask questions about her beloved creations, she can't help talking about those little tidbits that weren't released because they were extraneous to the story but which she may have often thought about and was tickled by. (As the gods can tell you, I do that too. I have all sorts of histories of Lusternia elder gods in my mind and can chat about them endlessly.)

Mhmmm. And we beg shameless for more!! At least I do... *cough*

I guess I misunderstood your point, sorry.

Yes, a Christian opposed to homosexuality will need to come up with a New Testament case for that position to be consistent with her hermeneutic.

Yes, it's more WHAT the people in question tend to use as justification, than me actually saying "WELL WHY DO YOU ALL EAT PORK AND WEAR LINEN/COTTON BLEND THEN?!"

Personally I'm not actually a fan of pork, but that's because my mother can't cook pork chops.

I disagree about publicity. From my limited experience, being in the spotlight is addictive. The problem is that she has finished all of her books now. For several years she has been front-and-center, and now all of a sudden people have read all of her books and moved on to other things. While I appreciate that she probably has a full story to tell - in fact, I think that background knowledge and understanding of the workings of her virtual world contributed to making the HP books amazing - there is no real reason for her to publicly go on tour to answer questions like these. I don't mean to say that she is malicious, but the entire point of the tour was to bring her back into the spotlight, and a side comment like this one can work wonders for keeping her there for awhile.



Not necessarily. Christians do not say that the O.T. does not apply, only that certain sections where there for a specific purpose, which was fulfilled and no longer applies. This is why people can quote Leviticus while not applying other parts of Leviticus. That said, there are other Biblical reasons for Christians disliking homosexuality, but the most Christians take it far beyond what is valid. There are Biblical reasons for disliking homosexuality, but there is no possible justification for the ridiculous hatred and abuse of homosexuals that Christians tend to be a part of.

I cook some bad-ass pork chops!

And on topic, thinking back, I can now pick out hints that Dumbledore was gay, like the ones mentioned in that article and a few others. It kind gives me an "Oh, yeah!" feeling - like when I watched the Sixth Sense a second time and noticed all the little clues throughout the movie that I hadn't put together.

It doesn't really add much to the story itself, more to the character - like pointing out that Dumbledore had a history of letting his emotions get in the way of doing the right thing in a timely manner. But it certainly doesn't take anything from the story.

I honestly agree with Estarra as to her motives. I mean, she's spent years living at least part of her life through these characters. And she made up all these facts and tidbits because they made the characters more real and her more able to view the world through their eyes, to get into their skin and write how they would feel. They're probably at least a little real to her, you know?

I don't really understand why people have a problem with her talking about these background tidbits even if it feeds her ego and/or need for publicity/spotlight or whatever. I personally think it's pretty interesting so it's win-win. (She gets her ego boosted and I get neat information.)

If only Tolkein were around to do a tour so we could find out more about Gandalf!

Clearly, Gandalf was gay too.

-duck-

As you know, there is a great spectrum of opinions in Christianity on that. To me, the contention that "The Old Testament is still in force except for Sections A, C, and D.2.b" is a problematic inconsistency, because either the prophesied Messiah fulfills the terms of the Old Covenant or he doesn't, and Jesus seems to think that he does. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

So, let me qualify my statement. In order for a Christian to establish a position against homosexuality that I would find consistent with a Christian hermeneutic, it would have to come from the New Testament.