*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

Hypocrite? Wut?

[ancient_roons]

JK has always been (and i'm not making this up, this is what she's been saying) an advocate of tolerance. I would say the general "tolerating" view is: you might disagree with gay practices, but just the same, treat gays like any other human being.

And hasn't that been how she has treated Dumbledore the entire time? In the books, it is never once mentioned he is gay. Implicitly, the readers have simply treated him LIKE ANY HUMAN BEING.

I find it hard to believe that the "tolerating" view contradicts Christianity. (So is she a hypocrite? Wut?) I also find it hard to believe that the books espouse anything stronger than the tolerating view (you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a passage saying "gay = good"). So what exactly is your problem with the books or the author?

Re: Hypocrite? Wut?

[linwenilid]

Thank you for your comment, even though I have no idea who you are. :P

So what exactly is your problem with the books or the author?

I think I have answered that throughout all the replies to other people's posts, so I'd like you to read them to gather the answer.

I would say the general "tolerating" view is: you might disagree with gay practices, but just the same, treat gays like any other human being.

I find it hard to believe that the "tolerating" view contradicts Christianity.

I also find it hard to believe that the books espouse anything stronger than the tolerating view (you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a passage saying "gay = good")Agree. And I don't think any different regarding tolerance, and regarding the books, I know there are many, many other topics and plotlines that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, please refer to my other posts for my answer to your questions

Re: Hypocrite? Wut?

[ancient_roons]

My problem is: I was unable to find any previous explication that did not assume she was doing something "against" Christianity. Even the one in this post:

"So, basically, my being upset with Mrs Rowling stems from that: that a Christian must not put his or her own ideas before God's word"

Implies that her ideas somehow contradict "God's word" (or else there'd be no conflict).

But, as I mentioned before, I cannot find any ideas espoused by JK which contradict God's word. Tolerance is not contradictory; pro-homosexuality simply does not appear.

Re: Hypocrite? Wut?

[linwenilid]

*sigh* I don't really know how else to explain it. It is not about tolerance, it's about the idea of homosexuality. By assigning homosexual orientation to Dumbledore, JKR made it a good thing ("cool points", someone already said), advocating tolerance of the *idea*, not precisely of people. That's bad for Christianity, if you ask me. And it wouldn't be such a big deal if it had come from an atheist or anyone that doesn't believe, but she does, which is what makes it a bit more than just a comment. And right now, supporters of the idea are thinking along these lines:

"This is a victory for homosexuality the world over," (here)

"Since most kids realize they are gay when they are 12 or 13, the same time when heterosexual kids realize they like the opposite sex, this should help them all see that it's alright to be gay!" (hereIf you really don't get my point after this, then I don't know how else to explain it. Someone with such a huge fanbase like her should be a little more careful with what she says, especially when it's something

Re: Hypocrite? Wut?

[ancient_roons]

I get what you're saying but.. it doesn't really make sense.

"By assigning homosexual orientation to Dumbledore, JKR made it a good thing"

No, she showed that good people can be homosexual, not that homosexuality is good.

"advocating tolerance of the *idea*, not precisely of people. That's bad for Christianity, if you ask me."

It may be bad for Christianity, but her advocation of tolerance does not contradict Christianity (in fact, I would've thought of tolerance as a Christian virtue).

It is like saying "free speech is bad for Christianity". Arguably, yes. But an idea being bad for Christianity is not the same thing as the idea contradicting Christianity. Being Christian does not mean you must be anti-free speech. Similarly, there is still no contradiction in tolerance.

"(and again, please, it is not about tolerating or not *people*, but advocating *beliefs*)."

Yes, she is advocating a belief in tolerance. Whichever one it is about, I see no contradiction.