*flabbergasted*

[linwenilid]

No, I'm not alright. I was shocked yesterday, which is why I was able to be silly and write a humorous (to me, at least) mock-letter containing JKR's humble request to fans. That's how I handle things: shock and denial takes a huge hold on me for a good while, and then I realise

Comments

[thewhitelily]

I know the bible verse. I'm not arguing against your assertion that the Bible says it is wrong - the Bible says a number of other things are wrong, too, which I won't go into here. I also know what you mean by saying that they have sinned being different to going to hell. Perhaps I should have said unrepentant homosexuals burning in hell for all eternity - it's what I meant, anyway - because I wasn't including those who deny their feelings becuase they believe it's wrong. I think they're usually referred to as ex-homosexuals, etc, anyway.

But I think your making this distinction now is rather hypocritical - you're attacking Dumbledore for being gay, not for his actions as a gay man or his not having been forgiven for those actions. You are the one who chose the battleground in that sense, and you are talking about someone being a homosexual, not his unrepented homosexual actions. Dumbledore wasn't living a life of sin, at least as far as we know: I think it's quite strongly implied that he was celibate since Grindelwald and sincerely regretted anything that passed between them at that time. If even that's enough for you to condemn him - or assume that he would be condemned - then don't try and change horses midstream and insist that you're talking about sins rather than the sinners themselves.

The baddies are the murderers, the goodies seek to preserve every life, whether pureblood or muggle-born.
What about Molly Weasley, who killed Bellatrix - deliberately, when she could have been brought in alive, because she was angry and grief-stricken and wanted to do it herself? What about Harry/Hermione/Dobby stealing from school stores? What about Harry disobeying and disrespecting his parental figures and sneaking out of school/or into danger? What about all the lying done by countless otherwise good characters? What about Fred and George's cruel jokes towards various characters through the series, which are presented as funny? What about Ron's vanity and pride after he won the Quidditch, or after the Second Task, which is presented as endearing? What about Harry's prejudice and unforgiving need to know that people were and always had been perfect? Otherwise good characters in the HP series make bad choices by deed or desire every single page - some are sinful, some are not. Certianly not all sinful actions are shown to have bad consequences - some certainly seem to have good ones.

I also disagree that Dumbledore remains a whiter-than-white character after the seventh book. He made mistakes aplenty, he lusted after power and allowed himself to be drawn into that, even though he eventually spent most of a lifetime denying himself both that power and his homosexual lover - which is repentence if I'd ever seen it. Harry saw Dumbledore's flaws, Aberforth saw Dumbledore's flaws, Dumbledore saw his own flaws (which is, after all, what matters) - and if you're only counting Elphias Dodge, then you've got just as biassed a sample as Skeeter and Fudge.

I agree she didn't specifically say that it was being gay that made him miserable. I still think it's a lesson that can be taken from it if people choose to look at it in that light. I also understand what you mean about her offering a role-model and support to the gay community. I would have thought that you'd thought that Christians with homosexual leanings could do worse than to learn from Dumbledore's mistakes and examples and spend a life of celibacy. Why don't you take the opportunity to work with it - see, even Dumbledore managed to overcome his homosexuality! - rather than angry ranting against it.

If I were you, I'd be much more embarassed by other influential "Christians" who say and do incredibly bigoted, hurtful, and unChristian things specifically in the name of God than by a fantasy author who included a gay character in her books without making a stand either way.

[linwenilid]

you're attacking Dumbledore for being gay

Again, I'll make the distinction: I was never, ever, attacking *Dumbledore*, or even thinking 'he shouldn't be gay, it's wrong', or anything like that. He doesn't exist, I don't care about him being gay, really. I was gathering JKR's stance on the subject from her act of revealing his sexuality, and connecting the dots. It's different; I frankly don't care about the implications of his being gay in the story - and honestly, your point that he repented from being gay and his subsequent celibacy stemming from his suffering doesn't convince me, nor it will convince any fanfiction writer (or even just readers) who want to play with his newly-discovered sexuality. So, I was not condemning *him*, a kid lit character, at all, but censoring the author's stance, after her self-proclaimed Christianity.

Harry saw Dumbledore's flaws, Aberforth saw Dumbledore's flaws, Dumbledore saw his own flaws (which is, after all, what matters) - and if you're only counting Elphias Dodge, then you've got just as biassed a sample as Skeeter and Fudge.

I was counting book fans, not other characters. Have you ever met anyone that hates Dumbledore? I've seen people who find him boring, and prefer to use the younger, fresher characters in fics, or read about them than about the Headmaster. But someone who hates him? I've yet to see them. And it's that almost-universal good opinion from book fans that makes his new trait a problem, since it endorses it. And the author of the book is responsible for that, not the character, and that's my point, not what you seem to think it is.

I would have thought that you'd thought that Christians with homosexual leanings could do worse than to learn from Dumbledore's mistakes and examples and spend a life of celibacy.

Alright, again: Dumbledore being gay supports homosexuality in both believers and non-believers. It was not so wise from *JKR* to offer such a role-model, either for believers or non-believers. In doing so, *she* has nudged them to embrace their leanings. *She* has tempted them to view homosexuality in a positive light, which, in biblical teachings is wrong, so *she* has set a stumbling block for the weak-willed and the non-believer. Of course, everyone is free to choose, and equally responsible for their own acts. It is *her* voiced support of the sin what I think is wrong, and I gather it comes from her own stance in it, which, again, goes against Christian teachings. And no one can *work* with it, because she hasn't come out with *that* particular story - that Dumbledore overcame his homosexuality -, so it's completely open to speculations of any kind. And let's face it, there's still people who believe Harry and Hermione belong together, so it wouldn't have changed much if she *had* come with that particular story, aside from some massive book-burning, that is...

If I were you, I'd be much more embarassed by other influential "Christians" who say and do incredibly bigoted, hurtful, and unChristian things specifically in the name of God than by a fantasy author who included a gay character in her books without making a stand either way.

True about the first part. It's really sad, and there are people out there doing awful things under the name of God that puts every Christian to shame, certain war, for example... But I think you're mistaken in thinking she didn't make a stand: to me, she made a pretty clear one.

What about Molly Weasley, who killed Bellatrix [...]

Interesting that you bring that up. Not relevant to the discussion, IMHO, but interesting, nonetheless. Because those details also reflect the author's stance on certain things, at least to me, since I think one writes about what one wants and agrees with, because doing otherwise would be masochistic. :)

[linwenilid]

Aargh, wrong formatting! Sorry about that, it was 3 AM... *embrarrassed*

[fairyhunter]

*butts in*

Of course, everyone is free to choose, and equally responsible for their own acts. It is *her* voiced support of the sin what I think is wrong
Homosexuality is not something you can choose, any more than you can choose what eye color you are born with. You can change the apparent color of the twinkling blue eyes with use of contact lenses or laser surgery, but the genes will still code for blue. So how can being gay be more of a sin than (or even an equal sin to) murder, when homosexuality is uncontrollable and murder is not something found in each and every cell nucleus of the murderer?

Because those details also reflect the author's stance on certain things, at least to me, since I think one writes about what one wants and agrees with, because doing otherwise would be masochistic. :)
Au contraire. Dimbledeb said herself that she doesn't write about murder because she agrees with it or endorses it. Mossy certainly doesn't want everyone who reads Cuchulainn to become a terrorist. It makes as much sense to write about something you don't understand as to write about something you do understand. One of the points of writing is to get into other perspectives and figure out "Okay, would person A think or act in this way... or in that? And WHY?" It lets us see what internal buttons need to be pressed in order for a person to do something completely unimaginably horrible. That doesn't mean we particularly want those buttons pushed; often the story can be taken as a warning not to fall into the same traps as the characters.

[linwenilid]

I'm not gonna argue science with you because I'm not really up-to-date with it. But I know it's a common topic that homosexuality is encoded in the genes and there's nothing to do about it. Is there irrefutable proof of that, though, or just research in progress? Still, even if it turned out to be an inborn trait, there are many other traits in human beings have been forced out, willed out or stifled in because of external pressures. Lefties being turned into right-handed people - an uncle of mine is one of those - people with talents being overlooked and never developing them, etc. I think that, even when a specific trait is born with a person, the environment they grow up in is a huge factor in their developing it or not. So, in a Christian context, which is where I come from and to which I address this concerns of mine, homosexuality can be reversed or corrected, even considering the very biblical teachings of overcoming sin through the power of God, something not understandable through human logic.

And, would you show Cuchúlainn to kids, or read Alde's fics to a crowd of nine-year-olds? The HP books are mainly kid lit, even though they also appeal to adults, and as such, they have to be clear and to the point to be understood by kids. So, they can't go around with heavy themes and obscure metaphors from which a moral lesson - if any - can be deducted after a lot of thought. And, I still don't understand how people can keep saying that Dumbledore's tragic lovelife is his homosexuality's fault, and not his own bad choice's. Maybe you didn't mean that right now, but Lily implied it at least twice in her posts. Do you think people's going to be lectured with that idea? Go write a fic addressing that and publish it at ff-net, let's see how many flames it gets. My point is, can you really say that "often the story can be taken as a warning not to fall into the same traps as the characters" regarding his being gay? I personally can't; I don't think it would have been very different if Grindewald had been a woman. See, I'm not trying to get into the story and accuse Dumbledore of sin, I never was; it's JK's "apparent" stance on it that confuses me and upsets me to a degree, because it goes against well-known Christian beliefs.