Oh those crazy Harry Potter Fans... I wonder what the Christian Right will do with this.

First promoting witchcraft and now homosexuality? She's going to hell.

Haven't read any of the books, just saw a few of the movies...was this hinted at in the books? If not, what's the big deal saying something like this after the fact?

Well, J.K. Rowling certainly would know, wouldn't she?

Can't wait for the Right Wing to go nuts!
;)

@sad sad...

That's a joke, right?
Oh wait. I forgot for a second. There are dumbed down narrow minded haters in the name of Jesus...

What, she hasn't made enough money so she has to start a media-storm over a character who never had any sexual references whatsoever?

Whatever. She's a hack author who got really lucky. Way to go.

Dumbledore's sexuality never had anything to do with any of the Harry Potter books.

Don't you think with Dumbledore's great power, he could be the head of the Ministry? Read the Wikipedia article on him and see how his sexuality affected him.

If we accept what JK Rowling considers the new, improved Dumbledore, then she's actually destroyed a great hero.

Then you go write your own fantasy novel. Ok?

Right-wing Christians never fail to amaze me. The Bible says that murder is a sin, but for some of these Christians, the Harry Potter books are okay as long as the villains are only killing people. (Lots of people.) There are a couple of curse words in the books, too, and the Bible also says that swearing is a sin. But throw in a gay character who never, in the course of seven long books, gives any recorded indication of being gay, and suddenly you have grounds for throwing out the books? Perhaps even burning them?

That's not holiness. That's not living a Christian life. That's bigotry, plain and simple. Someone who puts "being gay" above "killing and maiming" on their list of Very Bad Things is not someone I would ever trust. (Obviously the violence in the HP books is very mild, but the fact that half of the population of this country gets its collective underwear in a twist over sexuality while it turns a blind eye to fictional violence is a clear indication that not all sins are equal. Some "sins" are worse than others -- if they're committed by people whom right-wing Christians have already decided to hate.)

So, sad sad world, how do you justify the fact that the Harry Potter books are full of characters being murdered, and you approved that for your kids? You haven't answered that question. I want to know why you decided that the violence in the later books was okay, and Dumbledore being gay is not.

The books have not changed since we learned that Dumbledore is gay. The first time your kids read about Dumbledore, they had no idea that he was gay. J.K. Rowling was asked if she had ever thought of Dumbledore as having had a love life, as ever having been married, and she replied honestly: she had always thought of her character as being gay. Now you choose to "no longer support her," because she was honest about that fact? I feel that you are certainly intolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles, because you have decided that J.K. Rowling's admission that one of her characters has a certain "lifestyle" is insupportable. By throwing out the books, you are not teaching your kids that there are gay people in the world, and that you should love them, if even if you don't "agree" with them. You're teaching them that gay people are evil and should always be avoided. Why is her decision that one of her characters is gay "ridiculous"? It's not ridiculous at all for an author to answer a question honestly about how she has always conceived of a character of her own creation.

Of course it's commendable that you try not to force your beliefs on others, and that you set boundaries for your kids. Yes, some PG-13 movies are inappropriate. But what are you teaching them with this sudden backlash against the gay Dumbledore? That doesn't look very loving to me. It looks homophobic. It looks bigoted. You claim that you have love in your heart for gay people, but if you throw out the Harry Potter books over a gay character -- not over violence and cursing, but over a gay character -- your actions speak louder than words.

Yes, I believe that alternate life styles are a choice. A recent article in Discover magazine supports this belief. (for now) I may be proven wrong in the future. (It wouldn't be the first time)

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

We are all born sinners. It is in our nature. Just because I think about killing someone (your example) doesn't mean that I go out and do it, whether it feels right or not. People fight alcoholism and drug addition all the time. (other possibly genetic causes) We all come to difficult forks in the road. It is up to us to choose the one that is right.

I will admit that you and I won't always agree on which is the correct path to take.

Sad sad world: since when is being gay an "alternative lifestyle"? My gay friends get up in the morning, eat breakfast, take the subway to work, eat lunch with their coworkers, then go back to work, then have dinner and drinks with their friends and their significant others. In their spare time they read, watch movies, go to shows, work out, and participate in a variety of activities, including community service groups, church groups, and political organizations. That sounds a lot like my lifestyle, and I'm straight. The only difference between me and them is that they date, feel attracted to, and fall in love with members of the same sex.

I don't believe that their sexuality is a choice for them. I am a woman, and I could not choose to feel attracted to women. I could not choose to feel lust for women. I could date women, but I couldn't choose to enjoy it as much as I enjoy dating men. And I certainly couldn't choose to fall in love with anyone, male or female -- that just has to happen on its own. If homosexuality is a choice, why doesn't everyone have the capacity to make that choice? And why would anyone make that choice, knowing that it would cause people to hate them and look down on them, deny them their rights, and even act violent towards them?

The article you cited is an overview of research efforts, which reveals that scientists don't conclusively know what the cause of homosexuality is: genetics, environment, or a subconscious psychological change caused by sociological forces. But just because researchers haven't found the basis for sexuality yet does not mean that there is no basis other than conscious choice. Human emotions are rarely a matter of choice. Maybe you would argue that homosexual feelings are not sinful, but that acting on them is a choice and a sin. Then I ask you: how can denying one's own innocent, natural feelings of attraction and love be considered wrong? Since theological scholars can't agree on what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, and since many of the laws of the Old Testament are considered even by many fundamentalist Christians to be defunct in the modern world (animal sacrifice, for instance), it would be nice if Christians could rely more on their consciences and their feelings of empathy for guidance on this issue in 2007.

Still wondering why you found the violence in the Harry Potter books to be okay, but not the revelation that the author thought of one of her characters as gay.

J.K. Rowling is a cheeky one. Dumbledore's Army...definitely not the U.S. Army.

Spiny, your second paragraph starts with "I don't believe". We believe differently.

As I said earlier, there are a lot of things that "feel" right or good, but that doesn't mean we have to or should act on them.

The article I cited comes from a pretty liberal magazine. Yes, I agree that they don't know what causes homosexuality. It could be many factors. You could say that homosexual feelings are not a choice, but acting on them is a choice.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

Nothing confusing about that. What scholars are you referring to?

Animal sacrifice is not a good example. The reason the early believers sacrificed animals was to wash away their sins with the blood of an innocent lamb. This practice is no longer necessary because Jesus came as the Lamb of God and washed away all our sins. (if you believe)

A better example of old testament practices that aren't applicable today would be cutting off someones hand when they steal something.

However, there are many ideas and truths that are very relevant. Not only to Christians, but to everyone. Like the 10 Commandments.

I never said the violence was OK. However, the books don't contain violence for the sake of violence. The violence is always bad vs good. The violence doesn't make my kids want to go out and kill someone, but the books do portray Dumbledore as somewhat of a role model. Harry certainly reveres him. I would rather not have my kids thinking it is OK to act on "gay" feelings. Although the books certainly don't even hint at any homosexual behavior.

Now, do I think gay people are bad people? No. Unfortunately the gay lifestyle is quite often associated with multiple partners, loose morals, and sexually "deviant" behavior. Why do the Boy Scouts not want gay leaders?

On the other hand, I have known monogamous gay couples who have been together for many, many years. But they seemed to be the exception in the gay community.

You mention empathy. One of the things I am always trying to teach my kids is empathy. Put yourself in their place. I always try to treat people the way I would like to be treated. But that doesn't mean I should tolerate sinful behavior.

Bottom line, if you believe the Bible, homosexuality is wrong, like any other sin, and yes, I too am a sinner.

I haven't said anywhere that I dislike gay people. That is you putting a label on me, which is exactly what you are accusing me of.

I didn't say anywhere that we labor under original sin. Anyone with kids can tell you that making the right choice has to be taught. It doesn't come naturally.

I agree that taking a single verse and basing your religion or beliefs on it is a dangerous and short sighted practice. The Leviticus verse is I quoted only one example. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

You won't get any argument out of me when you say modern fashion is sinful.....

Sad Sad World: your idea that the monogamous gay couples you have known seem to be the minority in the gay community indicates that you do not know much of the gay community. Multiple partners, "loose morals," and sexually "deviant" behavior are all stereotypes of gay people which are frequently used to diminish them. The majority of straight people I know have multiple partners and "loose morals" -- premarital sex and one-night stands, going to bars to pick people up, etc. -- yet you never hear that monogamous straight couples are in the minority. Why do you think that is? It's easy for people to point the finger at gay people and accuse them of loose morals, even though they act just like straight people, because they're a separate group, and they frequently have their own bars, pornographic material, etc. It's easy to accuse them of being sinful by having multiple partners, when the laws of this country won't allow them to make their monogamous relationships official; many gay men and lesbians see no point in looking for "the one," because once they find that person, they aren't able to take that extra meaningful step. The media also plays a role; attend a Gay Pride Parade in New York City, and you'll see marching bands, activist groups, floats, decorated cars, NYC firefighters waving rainbow flags, gay moms and dads with strollers, and one or two men in leather chaps who are the only members of the parade to get their pictures in the paper.

The Boy Scouts have decided to discriminate against all gay Scouts, not just their leaders. They believe that homosexuality is somehow worse than other "sins," and so they refuse to accept gay Scouts. It doesn't matter to the Boy Scouts of America if those gay Scouts are morally upright, or if they believe in monogamy, or if they have Christian values. They're gay and the Boy Scouts of America don't want them. By contrast, there are gay Girl Scouts, and many of them make wonderful leaders within that program. There are also gay teachers, gay counselors, gay police officers and firefighters, gay politicians, and yes, even gay clergy and gay men and women serving (anonymously) in the United States military. It's good that the Harry Potter books portray Dumbledore as a role model, because it reflects the reality of our society. Is a soldier who receives the Purple Heart any less of a role model because he is gay? I had gay role models growing up, and I turned out straight -- because sexuality was not a conscious choice that I or anyone else was capable of making, and because being gay is just a small part of who a person is. Children emulate a person's character, not their sexuality. If Christians believe that gay people aren't all bad, then why is being gay such a dealbreaker for a fictional character who is portrayed as a good, heroic figure? What if he were real?

As Mike D has pointed out, biblical scholars are entirely unclear on the issue of whether or not the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality or inhospitality. Furthermore, Leviticus is selectively used in the modern world. One could just as easily argue that the law against homosexuality in Leviticus was put into place to facilitate the growth of the ancient Jewish community, just like the laws which Mike D has pointed out regarding the practices of sustaining that community through agriculture -- and, like the Old Testament laws regarding animal sacrifice, the coming of Christ rendered both of these laws unnecessary. One could argue that the Leviticus law is no longer applicable to an overpopulated world in which individual sexuality has no impact on the ability of a struggling group to survive. Furthermore, there is absolutely no direct mention of homosexuality by Christ. And I don't understand why the law about cutting off a thief's hand no longer applies, but the law about homosexuality does. Couldn't our society easily punish theft with dismemberment? Why don't we? The answer is that we have chosen not to. We have come to consider the practice barbaric. And if we, as a society, can realize that cutting off the hands of thieves is barbaric, we can also come to realize that being gay is okay.

Of course not everything that feels right IS right. Eating too much chocolate cake and speeding in your car are both unhealthy behaviors. But monogamous love? Two adults mutually cherishing one another, without hurting themselves, each other, or anyone else? Wrong? My conscience can't fathom it.

As to what I believe vs. what you believe on the subject of choice: I'm not sure why it should matter. Either gay people are born gay (or shaped by forces that are entirely beyond their control) or, if, as you believe they, they choose to be gay, that choice has been made. It's there. It has happened. As a society we can either pretend that gay people don't exist, and that they can't be role models, or we can accept gay people as they are -- by birth or by choice -- and learn to respect them as Harry respected Dumbledore. Instead of disapproving of them, we can hold them up as equals and refuse to devalue them and refuse to hide them from our kids.