Shocking revelation?

Hmmz, uhhmm, it has been a while, and i kinda forgot what i was gonna say.
I think it went something like this: the test i reffered too was valid, it met the required things needed to be seen as proper scientific 'forgot the word in englisg, but you can probably insert it from seeing the rest of sentence, like research but more so, ... srr my native language is flemish after all).

So 1/3 had homosexual tendencies (more then just thinking about how it might be with a man), and i think it was 1/5 was actual homosexual. (it was more or less that percentage i think ). Now if you say that those people are not natural, then bassically you are saying that millions of people are unnatural. Since this percentage is recurring throughout history (as far as we can check) and has always been there, it bassically means that it is part of the human race, as well as almost every creature. Since homosexuality seems to occur with almost all creatures it is in fact a natural thing. part of nature. It is not some mutation/infliction/disease.

Hmmz, i had a complete thoughtprocess, and whilst typing the start i forgot the rest, so this will have to do for a while. (Busy times = messy brain with me :) )
 
However, once I found out it was in response to a reader's question, while I still felt it was a bit of fluff, it made sense. (I'm still not sure it's not jumping on that bandwagon, but it's much, much less likely.) If there are things in the book that seem to support the idea that he's homosexual, then I'd say it was a part of her conception of the character the entire time. If this is a last-minute addition, then it does seem bandwagon-hopping....

This just seems... such a trivial thing to get all het up about.....

From a personal perspective and being an avid fan of the books having read them more times than I care to remember, the fact that Dumbledore is gay just fits the character, for me it's like the missing piece of the puzzle that is/was Dumbledore and I must admit that I always wondered, which is easy for me to say in hindsight but doesn't make it any less true.

J.K. has been writing these books for 16 years, she has known these characters, they are her characters, she can do what she pleases with them and only she will know the truth about them, the fans can speculate as much as they want but it's J.K. who has the knowledge.

As for this being J.K. jumping on the "gay is good" bandwagon, I think people in this day and age deserve a bit more credit...

Regarding the controversy J.K.'s answer to a child's question has caused, you hit the nail on the head with that last comment j.d. and I couldn't agree with you more.

xx
 
Its so fun though getting all het up about something,what else would we do I ask you, what else would we do ? If not get het up about every meazle thing? surely the world will come to and end. After all, there is such a thing as too quiet.
 
Some of my best puns are scratchbuilt. ;)

(And to be serious, measles can be very serious for some people.)
 
(And to be serious, measles can be very serious for some people.)

Precisely my point and it's also forms part of one of the biggest controversies of the past 20 years or so with the MMR debate... perspective is a very humbling thing. :p

xx
 
As for this being J.K. jumping on the "gay is good" bandwagon, I think people in this day and age deserve a bit more credit...

Not quite sure what you mean there, Ada. What I was getting at, though, is that it's become PC to take that stance, whether one genuinely believes it or not, and the media tends to shove both that and a particular type of multiculturalism down our throats a fair amount... which, in my experience, actually tends to cause more resentment, distrust, and anger/prejudice in the long run than the route of simply trying to get people past their prejudices over time. Of course, the latter takes a heck of a lot longer, and a lot more effort and intelligence than banging a drum like a flak-man, but it also tends to be much more effective and longer-lasting without so much backlash along the way.... Unfortunately, it's the "quick-fix" approach I see happening more and more with these issues, rather than the more effective but more tedious one.
 
Well, to remain perfectly on-topic, i'd like to add that i myself had mesles when i was a todler, and i still got some visible scars left from the scrathing, not big ones, hardly noticeable for most in fact, but still... it's a lifelong mutilation !
 
really pisses me off that she just stands up one day and says, "oh, btw.. dumbly likes boys."
I mean seriously, there was no need for that nor was there any indictation in the books that he was anything but an old dude that was good with magic. Next week, will she say, "dobby was having group orgies in the kitchens. why do you think he liked it down there so much? and why do you think the other house elves wanted to stay enslaved? and oh yeah, that apple pie, ron.... you don't where that's been."
 
really pisses me off that she just stands up one day and says, "oh, btw.. dumbly likes boys."
I mean seriously, there was no need for that nor was there any indictation in the books that he was anything but an old dude that was good with magic. Next week, will she say, "dobby was having group orgies in the kitchens. why do you think he liked it down there so much? and why do you think the other house elves wanted to stay enslaved? and oh yeah, that apple pie, ron.... you don't where that's been."

What an idiotic comment.
 
Not me. I just thought it was a case of an idealised adolescent emotional/intellectual attraction. Rowling said recently that it was implicit, and I suppose she would know - it just didn't strike me to wonder about it while reading the books.
This is also how I took it- as a bad case of hero-worship, of which there could be an unconscious sexual element. Furthermore, I think it works better dramatically for them not to have been romantically involved, or for Dumbledore to have been attracted to Grindelwald in that way. Romantic attachments are over-represented in stories, and especially in movies. It feels sort of cheap to replace an idealistic attraction with a sexual one- a rare case, I think, of an idea being better without added clarity from the author.

As for this being J.K. jumping on the "gay is good" bandwagon, I think people in this day and age deserve a bit more credit...
No they don't.:p People are just as eager to pick up the views of the in-crowd as ever.

I don't think there's any strict split between gay/straight, or between gay/straight/bi. People fall across an entire spectrum. So you're going to get tremendous statistical variance depending on how you define your terms. As for "natural"- cells mutate at a consistent rate, so over time there's a variety of traits in any given organism (us included!) and anything that doesn't kill you isn't weeded out of the gene pool. (Sort of the scatter method- throw it all out there and let it live or die as it may.) As long as you can live long enough to reproduce, your faulty genes will carry on. That is, if it's in the genes, which I'm not convinced it always is. And it has little bearing on what people ought/ought not be doing. (Since there's a gene for EVERY sort of human tendency.)

So volunteering to get my toes stepped on, no I don't think it's a perfectly acceptable behavior, but neither do I think it's a very wrong one. (And yes, there are A LOT of other things people do that I don't agree with...)
 
Difference of opinion.

I thought I said I would stop posting in this thread. Oh well I couldn't resist.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top