Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

It is interesting how much commotion such a simple statement can cause. I believe that once Rowling wrote the books, created the characters, they are now her intellectual property and she can do with them as she pleases. You can be unhappy about it (which is a little silly if you ask me), but to go so far as discard this statement of hers is narrow-minded ignorance of facts you do not like because you disagree.
It is little different from those who burned people for saying that the world is not flat a couple centuries ago. I would hope that we have all learned from both history and present occurances that tolerance is the only way we can keep peace, no matter if it is tolerance of differences in religion, race, or political or sexual orientation. Anyone who has problems accepting Rowling??s decision that Dumbledore was gay will still have to learn some more..

This is just plain stupid. Why do children need to know the sexual preference of people? Does everything have to promote sexuality? Can't children just have a good book? I find it offensive that this is just a way to sell more books and appeal to anyone who has to push an agenda.

Oh! And that "At least I didn't kill him" about Hagrid...
She takes too much on her shoulders... :)
We (at least I) love these characters and no one, even the writer herself can ruin it for us (at least me).

Poohter, I don???t think your comment fits well with this thread. If you want to attack someone???s personal beliefs, then shoot them an e-mail on your own time. As for the fact that Dumbledore is gay, if Rowling wants to say that Professor Snape was a cross dresser in his free time, then it won???t make much of a difference for me. I believe that it is up to the reader to decide upon something that is never discussed in the books. Personally, I don???t think the caring headmaster???s sexuality is at all relevant to the story and should be left out completely. Although there are many other sources that have compiled evidence of old Albus???s homosexuality, people will always find a way to insert hidden meaning into the simplest and most obvious statements, much like you poohter believe that anyone who does not openly celebrate homosexuality is a ???homophobe.??? Overall, I think it is unfair for Rowling to go back and put boundaries on how readers imagine any of the characters. If she always pictured Dumbledore as being gay, that is more than fine, and even encouraged, but to state it as fact???well she MUST have known what a stir it would cause..tsk tsk.

Were it not for my daughter being so emeshed in the Harry Potter series, I would have little more than a laugh over this because it ranks up there with the speculation over whether or not Batman and Robin or Gillian and The Skipper were queer.

However, since my daughter has become involved in The Franchise, I was thinking about what I really feel concerning the matter of JK Rowling's recent "outing" of her fictional character in her children's book and this is what I have come up with:

One man "loving" another man does not make him homosexual, gay or whatever other title we use to brand this type of affection, in the absence of the thought necessary to reach past such socio-political nomenclature with which we are being herded.

This opinion as expressed by J.K Rowling, that a man who loves another man is "gay" is dangerous. She has not written subtext into her story which, to date, would illustrate her character???s sexual orientation ??? yet, upon her stating that he loved another man she labels him gay.

What of the love of hero worship,of sons who love their fathers or brothers who love brothers or male students who have feelings of love for their professors ??? this cannot all be so conveniently defined (if not pandering to the political gay agenda) as "gay".

I see a clear distinction between them and to willfully cloud the distinction is offensive. It is further a violation of trust when is comes from someone who is spinning yarns to our children.

If my nanny told my daughter after reading her Little Red Riding Hood, that the Wolf who was disguised as granny was queer, I would fire her and strongly consider speaking with the appropriate authorities citing possible emotional abuse.

I do not know J.K. Rowling, a single mom, to be any manner of authority on human sexuality.

She writes from a woefully uninitiated standpoint regarding The Occult, a fact which most have overlooked due to her successfully hiding her ignorance behind clouding The Occult into a "Fairy Tale".

The franchise took off at a time when our nation and world needed a quaint "good will always win out over evil" fairy tale.

The fact that J.K. Rowling now wants to slather her concepts regarding human sexuality onto a fictional character after the fact; while this character has already been so widely accepted by children across the globe is offensive because it is, after all, a children's story and not a political platform.

Mixing the two is the stuff of brainwash and we should object.

I am horrified by the suggestion that Dumbledore would be gay. This is a series of CHILDREN'S books, and I find it inappropriate that my 8 year-old would have to question me about what "gay" means if she found out something like this. Sexuality, whether it is straight or gay, does not belong in these books or anything else designed for children. Don't kids have the right to maintain their innocence instead of being involved in adult issues? It's one thing to mention who gets married in the end, because that deems no explanation. But to exploit characters that are dearly loved by people across the globe...just to make a few more bucks? Utterly deplorable.

Every year, ordinary people who seem straight come out as gay, and there is all this surprise. In truth, the person is the same person, the only real difference being that they now have one less secret to carry around. Rowling is, essentially, doing the same thing here. Everyone looked up to Dumbledore, saw him as an admirable character, and few, if any, ever spent any time thinking about his sexuality. What would your perception of Dumbledore been if she'd stated it specifically in one of the earlier books. Would he then be "the gay wizard"? You probably never thought of him as "the straight wizard". He was known for his wisdom and understanding and his great skill, earning him the rightful recognition as one of the most powerful wizards of all time. This was the important thing. Gay people tend to have an inner battle with the "I don't want to live a lie and have this dirty secret" vs "I don't want to be categorized as the gay dude, as the first, defining element in my identity." Sexuality is an important part of an individual's personality, but it's also a part that is largely none of many peoples business. So..to those of you who suddenly feel cheated and disappointed...why? What if this was a real life situation? Someone YOU looked up to? Would you suddenly forget everything else about them, and now think of them as only a gay person? I think what Rowling has done here is brilliant. There was never any actual hiding it in the books. It just wasn't stated outright because it wasn't all that relevant. Yet everyone made assumptions, and now she springs a surprise that pushes your buttons and takes you out of your comfort zone. You have to rethink what you knew and thought about this character and how you feel about him. Some of you are so weakminded, that you just give up and feel crushed, you feel that the wonderful thing Dumbledore was has now been tainted. Well...guess whose problem that is? Its yours. You deal with it. The books are finished. Rowling has no regrets. You can't change anything here. So if you want to let that sour you, then that's a choice you make.

I agree with J.K. 100%. Just because he is gay doesn't mean you still can't love him. She is the author of the series and she makes the books, so that means that was her decision to make, and no one elses. I am not saying i wish he was gay, i am just saying that she is proving you can still be a well-acomplished, well rounded person and still be gay. That has nothing to do with who you really are inside and how you treat people. I mean look at him. He is just so awesome. J.K. has all the right in the world to do what she did and as a Potter fan i am behind her all the way.

What part of 'judge not lest ye be judged' did you people miss? There's nothing wrong with the books just because a character ended up being gay. Actually, I'm happy about it. Now all we need is for Sirius and Remus to be outed, and the fandom will rejoice. Anyone who would stop liking the books just because one of the characters has a 'personality flaw' is a close-minded moron. Why does it matter if someone is gay as long as they're not hurting anyone? It doesn't change anything about Dumbledore that he liked blokes. It's just another dimension of his character. To add on to that. Do you people REALLY think that JK NEEDS more money? She's probably completely happy as she is. She was just trying to do something for the fans when she let out more information about her characters. Most of us have loved them and grown up with them as the books were being released. Also, anyone who thinks that the books didn???t have anything about Dumbledore's sexuality must have been trying really hard not to see the chemistry between him and Gellert. The entirety of the fandom that had any sort of leanings in that direction was producing fanart for WEEKS afterward. Go ahead and burn your books. Why would JK care if you destroy an investment that totals to over two hundred dollars if you figure that they were thirty dollars a book. Also, all of you religious freaks need to remember that your beloved bible was translated by a man who hated women and homosexuals and KILLED anyone who translated a bit in a way that he disapproved of. If you can read the original transcriptions and are fluent in every language that it was written in, then I???ll listen to you when you tell me that the good book says that homosexuality is wrong. Until then, sit down and shut up because you don???t know what you???re talking about.

I would also like to comment that christians don't beleive that gay people are, as skinsthunder says "evil" we beleive it is a sin to be gay. Women were made for men and it is a great insult to god that men have relations with men.

Were it not for my daughter being so emeshed in the Harry Potter series, I would have little more than a laugh over this because it ranks up there with the speculation over whether or not Batman and Robin or Gillian and The Skipper were queer.

However, sine my daughter has become involved in The Franchise, I was thinking about what I really feel concerning the matter of JK Rowling's recent "outing" of her fictional character in her children's book and this is what I have come up with:

One man "loving" another man does not make him homosexual, gay or whatever other title we use to brand this type of affection, in the absence of the thought necessary to reach past such socio-political nomenclature with which we are being herded.

This opinion as expressed by J.K Rowling, that a man who loves another man is "gay" is dangerous. She has not written subtext into her story which, to date, would illustrate her character???s sexual orientation ??? yet, upon her stating that he loved another man she labels him gay.

What of the love of hero worship,of sons who love their fathers or brothers who love brothers or male students who have feelings of love for their professors ??? this cannot all be so conveniently defined (if not pandering to the political gay agenda) as "gay".

I see a clear distinction between them and to willfully cloud the distinction is offensive. It is further a violation of trust when is comes from someone who is spinning yarns to our children.

If my nanny told my daughter after reading her Little Red Riding Hood, that the Wolf who was disguised as granny was queer, I would fire her and strongly consider speaking with the appropriate authorities citing possible emotional abuse.

I do not know J.K. Rowling, a single mom, to be any manner of authority on human sexuality.

She writes from a woefully uninitiated standpoint regarding The Occult, a fact which most have overlooked due to her successfully hiding her ignorance behind clouding The Occult into a "Fairy Tale".

The franchise took off at a time when our nation and world needed a quaint "good will always win out over evil" fairy tale.

The fact that J.K. Rowling now wants to slather her concepts regarding human sexuality onto a fictional character after the fact; while this character has already been so widely accepted by children across the globe is offensive because it is, after all, a children's story and not a political platform.

Mixing the two is the stuff of brainwash and we should object.