Outing Gives Potter Passages New Meaning

Outing Gives Potter Passages New Meaning

There are 138 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Oct 21, 2007, titled Outing Gives Potter Passages New Meaning. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

With author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay, some passages about the Hogwarts headmaster and rival wizard Gellert Grindelwald have taken on a new and clearer meaning.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
RealityCheck

Chicago, IL

#135 Oct 22, 2007
the1stwizard wrote:
What a load of garbage. If Dumbledore's sexuality is simply incidental then why mention it at all?
I personally am sick and tired of having homosexuals forced upon me in all area's of entertainment. You can't get away from them in movies or T. V. and now childrens books?
I don't have any problem dealing with gays in my everyday life, but it's unrealistic for the liberal media/entertainment monopolies to assume that I'll embrace them in my entertainment choices., where they're forced on you for no apparent reason having anything to do with plot or story lines, but rather just to put a homo in.
But that's what makes us such a great country. We don't have to watch or listen to or read that subject matter if we don't wish to. It's too bad some liberals think it's the cool thing to slip the homos in where it just becomes annoying.
What makes you think that anyone wants to see anything YOU deem to be appropriate. Theres plenty of crap there that media has out there...but the homosexual stuff isnt ok? What a crock. Geta clue dude..the world doesnt revolve around your views, needs or wants either.Everyone has a right to their opinion...And there are plenty of people out there who don't feel anything is being forced on them....You dont see the gay guys complaining about all the t*t* N a** out there...You dont see them crying that the conservative male ego media forces crap like that down their throats. WHY, cuz they dont GIVE A SH*** It is what it is..and like you said if they dont like it, they dont watch it. WOW what a concept.

BTW The middle east forces crap down peoples throat. I think they may have something to actually complain about
RealityCheck

Chicago, IL

#136 Oct 22, 2007
Paul wrote:
C'mon gay people. Please don't try to tell me there is no Homosexual Agenda. There better be a gay agenda, and if there isn't, your not working hard enough. The gay agenda should be that when the author anounces that a main character is gay, nobody cares, and it's not news, because we all realize that there is no difference between gay people and "the rest of us". Because, sorry folks, but that is all those evil fags actually want, to be treated like everyone else. Like maybe be able to walk down the street hand in hand, or show affection to their partner in public and having no one pay any mind to it. Of course, some of you feel the need to pick out an obscure passage from Exodus while readily ignoring buckets full of other equally obscure, and simply ridiculous passages,(touching the skin of a pig anyone?) to justify your bigotry. I guess we all need someone to villify so that we can feel better about ourselves, thankfully I have you for that purpose.
stop the queers before they make me uncomfortable or are allowed to have reality intrude into my life!!!!!
HERE HERE!....I agree
RealityCheck

Chicago, IL

#137 Oct 22, 2007
Cole wrote:
Heh, anything to incorporate homosexuality into media these days. Funny how she waited until the series was over to do this. It disgusts me.
Cry me a river cole....
Matt

Aurora, IL

#138 Oct 22, 2007
Erica wrote:
It always makes me laugh when parents, when confronted with an openly gay person, immediately turn to "how will I tell my CHILDREN what GAY is?!" I'm like, uh, the same way you tell them what anything else is. At least be honest and admit that you're worried that telling them what it is will make them think it's okay to be gay. You're a crap parent and a crap person for thinking that way, but at least you'd be honest. Honest and crappy.
What's amazing to me, is that you can say this- and believe that any other belief is "intolerance," and yet, not realize that you are far, far more intolerant than those you're accusing. You are intolerant of others beliefs, both religious and moral, and it's a drastic and ridiculous generalization to say that because someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, they are "crappy people." Further, I don't believe it is appropriate for you to make the decision that parents should have to have sexually-oriented conversations with their young children because some idiot author has chosen to use a fictional childrens book to take a political and moral stance.

Since: Feb 07

Lansdale, PA

#139 Oct 23, 2007
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing to me, is that you can say this- and believe that any other belief is "intolerance," and yet, not realize that you are far, far more intolerant than those you're accusing. You are intolerant of others beliefs, both religious and moral, and it's a drastic and ridiculous generalization to say that because someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, they are "crappy people." Further, I don't believe it is appropriate for you to make the decision that parents should have to have sexually-oriented conversations with their young children because some idiot author has chosen to use a fictional childrens book to take a political and moral stance.
You didn't really get the intent of that post did you? Erica showed no intollerance for a person's beliefs. If a person would rather make the rest of the world not talk about something so that they don't have to be put in to position of having to discuss it with their child, that makes them somewhat selfish and not the best parent in the world.

Sheltering your children from the world is not doing them any favors. The day will come when they will be confronted by something that you chose to hide from them and they will be unprepared to deal with it.

Why do you all think that explaining what Gay means is the equivilent of showing porn to your child? The simple answer to the question "What does Gay mean?" is "It's when a boy likes another boy". That's all a child needs, a simple definition.
Rob S

La Grange, IL

#140 Oct 23, 2007
RealityCheck wrote:
<quoted text>
You are sooo right....I agree with you. I suggest banning Cinderella, or possibly even Sleeping Beauty.
There is NO place for any LOVE ever in a childrens book or film. Thank the lord for your wonderful insight. Love betwen two people is not meant for the chilluns to see. We don't want to give them the wrong idea. I mean Oscar and Cookiemonster. That's just not right. But wait Oscar already has a love, his girlfrield Grungetta! There is no place for a chillun to see that in the morning, now is there. A relationship between to hetrosexual puppet monsters?!? I say BOYCOT Sesame Street!
Any other brilliance you care to bring to the table, please share it with the rest of us, I'll be waiting with bated breath.
Yes, you could not see a point if it jabbed you in the eye. PArents of children too young are being forced into a position by a childrens author. It i s not up to JK Rowlings, Sesame Street, USA network you or anybody else to dictatehow and when I expose my children to this. This is not about love, or relationships. It is about an author who for whatever reason thought her series was not enough in and of itself.
So, your idea banning of Cinderella and/or Sleeping Beauty, is one of the more mediocre attempts at sarcasm. You have obviously missed my and others points.
Oh, and if your breath is so bated, try Crest exta whitening, it can't hurt.

Since: Feb 07

Lansdale, PA

#141 Oct 23, 2007
Rob S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you could not see a point if it jabbed you in the eye. PArents of children too young are being forced into a position by a childrens author. It i s not up to JK Rowlings, Sesame Street, USA network you or anybody else to dictatehow and when I expose my children to this. This is not about love, or relationships. It is about an author who for whatever reason thought her series was not enough in and of itself.
So, your idea banning of Cinderella and/or Sleeping Beauty, is one of the more mediocre attempts at sarcasm. You have obviously missed my and others points.
Oh, and if your breath is so bated, try Crest exta whitening, it can't hurt.
What are your feelings on children being exposed to dating and kissing? Those subjects are also covered in the books. How about murder and torture? Shouldn't you want to control your child's exposure to these topics? Why is the concept that Dumbledore likes guys so much more horrible than any other adult theme included in this "children's book"?
RealityCheck

New York, NY

#142 Oct 23, 2007
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing to me, is that you can say this- and believe that any other belief is "intolerance," and yet, not realize that you are far, far more intolerant than those you're accusing. You are intolerant of others beliefs, both religious and moral, and it's a drastic and ridiculous generalization to say that because someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, they are "crappy people." Further, I don't believe it is appropriate for you to make the decision that parents should have to have sexually-oriented conversations with their young children because some idiot author has chosen to use a fictional childrens book to take a political and moral stance.
So what you are saying is unless it is moral in your eyes it should not be repeated for society to here? WAKE UP DUDE..you are creating the hypocracy. What if the gays felt that hetrosexual couples were immoral, and they started to complain that they could no longer tolerate the immoratily of the hetrosexuals. Of course that would never happen because YOU say it isnt immoral. Man read your bible, leviticus, etc....according to the old testament, many of the things you have done required you to be stoned to death. Dont quote morality, unless you find that to be a proper punishment for many of the things the bible preaches.
Art

Sault Sainte Marie, Canada

#143 Oct 23, 2007
Enough already! Why should we have to put up with this sort of nonsense in fiction for children? It's enough that some activists want to bring this agenda to classrooms. Instead let kids enjoy fiction as fiction, not some sort of preachy moral agenda.
Erica

United States

#144 Oct 24, 2007
Matt, Yobyag got it right. Things that I personally find distasteful happen all the time, but I have to explain what those things are to my kids or I'm a crappy parent. If you think that homosexuality is distasteful and wrong, so be it, but it shouldn't mean that you can explain what it is. I don't think that my kids need to be protected from finding out what, say, a crackhead is for fear of them becoming one.

But yeah, for the record, I *do* think that if the worst thing possible to you (the general "you", not the specific) is your kid being gay, then you're a crappy parent and a crappy person.
Erica

United States

#145 Oct 24, 2007
Sorry, a correction: but it shouldn't mean that you CAN'T explain what it is.

Since: Feb 07

Lansdale, PA

#146 Oct 24, 2007
Erica wrote:
Sorry, a correction: but it shouldn't mean that you CAN'T explain what it is.
For some reason people think that if your kid asks "What does gay mean?" that means you have to explain the details of sexual intercourse between two men.

When they ask where baby's come from do you tell them about intercourse between a man and a woman? No, you "dumb" it down and explain it in terms that the child can easily grasp and understand. Hence the "Birds and Bees" and the "Stork".

The only answer they need to hear is that Gay is when a boy likes another boy or a girl likes another girl just like Mommy and Daddy like each other. That is sufficient and will be enough for them until they get older and start to figutre these things out on their own.

If you're really lucky an older kid will explain it all on the bus to school and you'll never have to have any "uncomfortable" conversations with your children.
Melange

Lithonia, GA

#147 Oct 24, 2007
Actually, any author can tell you -- Stephen King , Anne Rice, Taylor Caldwell, Diane Duane, Peter David -- any of them...that they have paragraphs, pages, or whole books written on the personality traits and likes and dislikes on the characters that appear in the books.

Not everything in the concordance [the full continuity and timeline and detailed profiles of the characters] makes it into the book. Because it's not necessarily relevant.

Stephen King even explained this in detail in "Misery," and it was explained again when that book became a movie.

It's part of the writing exercise for a writer to know every detail about the character, including ones that may not make it into the published work.

Rowling was asked a direct question and she answered it.

Why was it not mentioned in the books?

Dumbledore's interest in the same sex was not relevant at all to whether or not Harry would be equipped to survive and defeat Voldemort. That's why it didn't get mentioned in the series. There was no reason for Dumbledore to mention it to Harry, whose point of view is the one that informs 99% of all seven books.

As for why it's news?

Sadly, it is news because there are people out there who think being gay is a choice. It is news because there are people out there who believe being gay is wrong and sick and perverse. It is news because society is still not enlightened and openhearted enough to just treat gayness the same as we'd treat any other trait.

Dumbledore had red hair.
Dumbledore wore half-moon glasses.
Dumbledore liked candy.
Dumbledore is gay.

It's just another fact about him. We, the readers, are making it news by all this freakoutage.
Anonymous

United States

#148 Oct 25, 2007
RealityCheck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would JWH concider his kid to be gay...probably got 6 or 7 of them at least. what are the odds? Just disown him if he ends up being gay! That is the way of a good christian..Nothing to worry about if they never existed right? Being gay is a choice, and no son of a christian is going to make that ungodly choice. JWH knows dont ya buddy? You've surprssed those feeling for dumbledore all those years, cuz ya know they were wrong. Sinner! YOu better repent or say a rosarie or something like that. For SHAME!
Its all about love and family after all isn't it?
Leave Dumbledore alone!
I think it's wonderful that JK Rowling decided to do this. And, since we've discussed that Dumbledore breaks a streotype, I'm going to do the same.
Some Christians are nothing like that, some are. Some non-christians are like that, some aren't.
And a rosarie is an object. People say 'hail mary's', and that's only Catholics.
Also, people need to realize that reading a book does not affect your actions, unless you have no brain and follow everything a book mentions. And if people were like that, people reading the Old Testament (Torah) would all be burning gays.
Which they're not.
It's called common sense, and Dumbledore is awesome!
RealityCheck

Woodridge, IL

#149 Jan 21, 2008
AMEN yobyag!. I wonder if these people are just as offended by the golden compass and the Vatican (oh i mean the magisterium, my bad)
Yobyag wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't really get the intent of that post did you? Erica showed no intollerance for a person's beliefs. If a person would rather make the rest of the world not talk about something so that they don't have to be put in to position of having to discuss it with their child, that makes them somewhat selfish and not the best parent in the world.
Sheltering your children from the world is not doing them any favors. The day will come when they will be confronted by something that you chose to hide from them and they will be unprepared to deal with it.
Why do you all think that explaining what Gay means is the equivilent of showing porn to your child? The simple answer to the question "What does Gay mean?" is "It's when a boy likes another boy". That's all a child needs, a simple definition.
RealityCheck

Woodridge, IL

#150 Jan 21, 2008
The point is, you are not going to be able to control all things that are happening around your children. Movies are ALREADY discussing relationships, and so are tv shows. If they can't show homosexual reltionships then they should not be able to show heterosexual relaionships. just because YOU think its immoral, doesnt mean everyone does. maybe the gays dont want their childern to watch sesame street or cinderella because they depict heterosexual relationships. Maybe THEY find it offensive.

they more than likely don't because not showing homosexual relationship love to a child in a format such as cinderalla is just as ridiculous as not showing cinderella kissining a prince. Its a fact of life, get used to it, it's not going away you..stop being so intolerant and get off your throne of "morality" its beneath most of us. Pick something else in the bible to overlook, and lay off the gays. try paying more attention to the war type cartoons that are on childrens networks...maybe you should get on your bandwagon and stop that too...if you have all this time to be soo worried about the gays
Rob S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you could not see a point if it jabbed you in the eye. PArents of children too young are being forced into a position by a childrens author. It i s not up to JK Rowlings, Sesame Street, USA network you or anybody else to dictatehow and when I expose my children to this. This is not about love, or relationships. It is about an author who for whatever reason thought her series was not enough in and of itself.
So, your idea banning of Cinderella and/or Sleeping Beauty, is one of the more mediocre attempts at sarcasm. You have obviously missed my and others points.
Oh, and if your breath is so bated, try Crest exta whitening, it can't hurt.

Since: Feb 07

Lansdale, PA

#151 Jan 21, 2008
RealityCheck wrote:
The point is, you are not going to be able to control all things that are happening around your children. Movies are ALREADY discussing relationships, and so are tv shows. If they can't show homosexual reltionships then they should not be able to show heterosexual relaionships. just because YOU think its immoral, doesnt mean everyone does. maybe the gays dont want their childern to watch sesame street or cinderella because they depict heterosexual relationships. Maybe THEY find it offensive.
they more than likely don't because not showing homosexual relationship love to a child in a format such as cinderalla is just as ridiculous as not showing cinderella kissining a prince. Its a fact of life, get used to it, it's not going away you..stop being so intolerant and get off your throne of "morality" its beneath most of us. Pick something else in the bible to overlook, and lay off the gays. try paying more attention to the war type cartoons that are on childrens networks...maybe you should get on your bandwagon and stop that too...if you have all this time to be soo worried about the gays
<quoted text>
Amen right back at ya RC.
Funny how it's not up to JK to introduce Homosexuality to children, but racism, slavery, murder and dark magic are just fine.
Hypocritics.
Kamil Szczepaniak

Winchester, UK

#152 Jan 22, 2008

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rutherford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Parking Enforcement 7 hr NJ Shopper 2
News In Passaic, Acting Mayor Lora Looks to Run for ... Tue Dorota 2
News 1,500 child porn files found on Phillipsburg ma... (Mar '15) Mar 15 rasputinsir 5
News Woman accused of taking 2-year-old child to buy... Feb '17 Iris Rodriguez 1
News Pat Battle - About Us News Story - WNBC | New York (Mar '08) Feb '17 Diane Castro 35
Out of Control Traffic Enforcement Feb '17 crying towels 4 sale 2
News Paterson is among 22 N.J. police departments to... Feb '17 Iris lopez 1

Rutherford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rutherford Mortgages