Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: unowen7 @ 10/21/2007 1:13:34 PM

    When you choose to believe that being gay is refreshing rather than the Lord's divine ordinance and natural order of things, well you might need to rethink "your Christianity." Jesus was not tolerant of sin, He loved people, but he does not tolerate sin hence the command, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Read Romans Chapter 1. Homosexuality is not even a natural sin. You also prove my point. I did not even say anything mean towards gay people and you call me intolerant because I choose God's truth over the world's sinfulness. Again, you better check your Christianity.

    And my hotline to God is His Word and prayer. You should try reading it and praying before you starting calling yourself a Christian. Misleading a child and turning them down a path of unrighteousness has severe consequences with the Lord. But as a Christian you should know that. Matthew 18:6 - "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Think about it, pray about it and the Holy Spirit will give you wisdom into this truth. A sinful life is not that refreshing to the Lord. I believe in loving people as commanded by Jesus but there is nothing in the Bible that says I have to love and tolerate their lifestyle. Humans are full of excuses as to why they have to lead sinful lives. I'm not saying anyone is evil nor am I casting the first stone, but as a Christian it is my responsibility to tell people about the love of Christ and His path to salvation. This entails a turning away from sinfulness and obeying God. The only thing refreshing is repentance, faith and obedience to Christ and the Word of the Lord. God does not tolerate sin and neither should Christians. Israel tolerated the sins of those arond them and it lead them to disfavor and ultimately a destructive judgment from God. I do not hate gay people. I love them as people and want to see them enter the Kingdom but I do not love their sinful lifestyle and I don't have to. Be careful where your loyalties lie and who you are trying to please. If you try to ride the fence, you may find yourself falling off on the wrong side.

    • Posted By: schoolstocker @ 10/21/2007 10:17:59 PM

      "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a milestone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea" that sounds like murder .. and isnt murder a sin .. argo creating a sin or the though or one. It's not your job or responsibility to tell people anything .. mind you own bussiness and live how you want to i do not mean any disrespect, i mean your listening to a preacher and a Book thats been re-writen nd re writen and re rote thousands and thousands of times im pritty sure there have been some people out there who dont agree with somthing and change it around a little bit anyways sorry if i have offended you i didnt meen to ..

    • Posted By: bnh916 @ 10/21/2007 1:36:21 PM

      Oh would you just shut up you religious freak. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay (not that I am gay, but I know gay people and half the ones I know...you wouldn't even suspect they're gay). You need to get your head out of your ass and realize God isn't everything. There is more to life than God. People like you think you're so great, like you're above everyone, like you are best friends with God and speak directly to him. But you don't. And on the matter of Dumbledore being gay. It's an effing book. It's fictional. If you don't approve of it, don't read it, and don't lecture the rest of us who aren't as God-obsessive as you and actually enjoy the books.

      • Posted By: tangleswithtigers @ 10/21/2007 4:52:09 PM

        You know what? My god is loving, understanding, and forgiving. I was put on this earth as I am now, and I don't see why He would hate something that He created. No, you're not the first to cast stones. You're a nameless number in a sea of thousands, and you sprout rhetoric you've been taught since birth because you've been too close minded for your entire life to look beyond it and see that maybe, just maybe, it's not all fire and brimstone. Go out. Find some happiness. And stop being such a wet blanket towards the part of the word that happens to be comfortable and happy with who and what they are. It's because of people like you that people who were genuinely good people have been stoned to death, drug under jeeps, hung, had their throats slit, and/or were left in public places with their cooling corpses vandalized. All because someone like you judged them in God's place, and decided to act out that hatred when you had no place to. Gay people are not second class citizens. They're not monsters out to corrupt your children. They are people, just like everyone else. I, for one, am proud of JK for showing that, and not making a big deal out of it. If you noticed, it has been the PEOPLE who have made a big deal out of this. Not the author. Oh, and by the way, to love someone, you have to love their flaws too. Not just what you deem worthy of loving.

      • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 2:25:52 PM

        Wow. You sound rediculouse. People choose to pick apart a kids book, but whats the point? Its not hurting anyone! Harry Potter rocks, either way!

  • Posted By: jimbo55 @ 10/21/2007 9:54:54 PM

    Too bad, just wish we could've left it alone - I never really considered the characters sexuality, but now I have to wonder what was really going on between Huck Finn and *** Jim?

  • Posted By: schoolstocker @ 10/21/2007 9:40:07 PM

    ..but got created the earth in three days .. ok.. so then also if god did not create homosexuality why does it say in the BIBLE you holy book god spoke Get thee behind me Satan Sounds kinda homo to me, but thats my opinion just because some one is different and isnt a bible thumper like some ppl are dosent meen they are sinners and evil some may still believe in a higher power (aka "GOD") but still have other religions do you call then sinners as well? where do you get off judging people like that (i know you said im not judging) but thats a cover up for the fact that you are just because the lord dosent like it meens you dont. i believe yes there is a god .. but if he killed him self (sorry sacrifised) for our sins then there is a world of forgiveness in him and there for loves all of his children and no one Has the Right to be saying the way some one else is living is Wrong and sin full. live your life the way you see fit but dont preach to people who obviously dont want to hear it because in all awnesty your just waisting air and our time because we end up reading it and getting mad then writing something like this so you can write back and complain bash me and say im putting down your religion.. when i clearly stated i do believe and a god .. but there are hundreds of "god" "no one shall be put before me " i dont put anyone before him i put them with him .. unless its my family their there for me when i need them i have never once had god come down and talk to me and tell me things will be alright. i have faith, i just choose to use it differently . reply or not i dont really care.

  • Posted By: fujiid @ 10/21/2007 9:38:38 PM

    It's called fiction unowen7 - There is no incident where anyone is practicing witchcraft - and obviously you're a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible, which in my view just furthers my inclination that you're also an ignorant person. Perhaps you should try to get somewhat of an education, instead of just taking every word of the Bible(which was written by other men) as ultimately true. Even Jesus Christ spoke the truth through parables, and if you want to quote scripture, Matthew 13:14 -"By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." - Isn't funny how the greatest educators of our history have provided means to come up with their own decisions, instead of directly being told what is right or wrong. Why don't you follow their example the next time you want to preach about a fictitious book such as "Harry Potter" Don't you think you could be doing better things with your time? And for me, No, I don't have anything better to do with my time than argue with you!

  • Posted By: fujiid @ 10/21/2007 9:36:36 PM

    It's called fiction unowen7 - There is no incident where anyone is practicing witchcraft - and obviously you're a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible, which in my view just furthers my inclination that you're also an ignorant person. Perhaps you should try to get somewhat of an education, instead of just taking every word of the Bible(which was written by other men) as ultimately true. Even Jesus Christ spoke the truth through parables, and if you want to quote scripture, Matthew 13:14 -"By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." - Isn't funny how the greatest educators of our history have provided means to come up with their own decisions, instead of directly being told what is right or wrong. Why don't you follow their example the next time you want to preach about a fictitious book such as "Harry Potter" Don't you think you could be doing better things with your time? And for me, No, I don't have anything better to do with my time than argue with you!

  • Posted By: tmorrigu @ 10/21/2007 4:51:22 PM

    I feel like Rowling was simply explaining the perspective she came from while writing the books. For example: Tolkein's Silmarillion was how he kept track of things that were critical to the history of Middle Earth, and thus a foundation for writing about Middle Earth, but not critical to enjoyment of the books, or understanding of the characters.
    She wrote about Dumbledore as a gay man who experienced a tragic love early in life, and never had a romantic relationship again after that. It was not necessary for her to explicitly state either the earlier love or his orientation, so long as she kept the impact of these experiences consistent.
    Characters such as these often appear in books as the wise elders who may be accurately perceived to be asexual now, but were distinctly sexual/romantic in their youth. Most older characters in stories who are not explicitly presented as being in a relationship with another elder will be presented as having had a tragic love interest when they were younger.
    If she had just wanted publicity, she would have manufactured some special situation in which she could announce it. This way she was just answering questions about a character. What's wrong with that?

    • Posted By: az2598 @ 10/21/2007 7:50:54 PM

      Tolkien's Silmarillion was actually supposed to be one of his greatest works, but was left unfinished. I would consider what Chris tolkien is doing (assembling old letters notes, making books out of them ... Children of Hurin) to be on par with what jk rowling is doing

  • Posted By: jamdownah @ 10/21/2007 7:24:41 PM

    This "revelation" is ultimately pointless and typical of Rowling. If it is such a big deal, why was this fact not in the books themselves? She keeps talking about tolerance but Dumbledore being gay was nonexistent in the books themselves, making no waves, having no effect, no impact whatsoever on what went on in the books. So he was "blinded" by his feelings for the Hitler-equivalent? Where is that shown in the books? Nowhere. But that's typical of her... the books can't be sufficient in and of themselves. There needs to be supplementary interviews to fill in what was clearly not important enough to include in the books. But now all of a sudden, that "fact" is earth-shaking information? Sorry, she can't have it both ways. It's like her trying to have the emotional impact of Harry Potter dying.. except, wait, he doesn't actually die.

    She wants to talk about tolerance.. why not do that in the books? Why make the Slytherins all bad guys, even after all that talk about it's your choices that make you what you are? If that was the case, then some of the Slytherins should have been good (I guess Snape is supposed to fill that niche?). Some of the Gryffindors should have been bad (or was that Pettigrew only?). She gives a lot of lip service that does not get backed up in her work, but nobody wants to call her on it because she is the Second Coming of Christ or something. I am waiting for time to remove the scales from people's eyes so they can look at these books in more of a honest light I hope that people will be able to comment on, discuss, highlight the flaws inherent in this book series without others feeling compelled to jump down their throats in automatic defense of this Cult of Mediocrity. Love the books, but don't be blind, people.

  • Posted By: cobuddha23 @ 10/20/2007 3:35:10 PM

    I wondered about that ever since I read the line about Dumbledore's "flamboyantly cut purple suit" in the scene where Harry and Dumbledore use the penseive to examine Dumbledore's memory of Tom Riddle's orphanage. :) Thanks, J.K.R., for acknowledging that gay people exist in the wizarding world just like they do in this one.

    • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 5:23:14 PM

      I agree its good she acnolaged it, but the thing about the purple suit tis a stereotype!!!

  • Posted By: solarwind @ 10/21/2007 12:55:02 PM

    I see no reason for JK Rowling to sexualize Dumbledore in any way. Dumbledore's sexuality was not a part of any of the books, and it was not necessary to inject the controversary into the series, ESPECIALLY considering that children are the target audience. A big deal was made of Harry's first kiss, and budding romance of Hermoine and Ron, which in the series were treated with the innocence of children becoming teenagers, and appropriate for children who understand and appreciate this level of intimacy. Did revealing that Dumbledore was gay explain anything left unfinished in the series, provide any missing clues to Dumbledore's motiviations, or enhance the series in any way? No, but it did create headlines. Maybe that's all JK Rowling wanted, and if so, it was a disservice to the fans of the series. Not because Dumbledore is gay, but because the "outing" of Dumbledore was sensationalistic and controversial, and only served to achieve more press for JK Rowling. It did nothing for the children who read and love the books.

    • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 2:18:37 PM

      I dissagree. She was just answering questions truthfully. She didn't plan to reveal that right there and then, but what would you rather have had her do, lie??? Geez, I think it's awesome she revealed this! Now it made her lesson so much more real, by connecting it to a real form of decrimination. I love her for making my life a little easier (I'm a bisexual), and helping people understand, I'm not different then anyone else in the world.

      • Posted By: tangleswithtigers @ 10/21/2007 4:39:54 PM

        Actually, it did if you paid attention. Dumbledore loved Grindelwald. It explains why he put up with him when his views were so far out of whack from what we knew of him. It explains why he helped him and encouraged him when his views went against his own. Love is the most powerful theme in the books, and you're ignoring it in this case because it doesn't suit your tastes of right and wrong. Could you even imagine the damage that Rita Skeeter could have done had their relationship been anything other than what it was? Why would JK bring that into a children's book? It just helps those of us who are old enough to understand such things understand a little bit better. The Harry Potter series didn't need people bickering like you upstanding citizens are doing here to distract from the real plot. Being gay has no real bearing on anything beyond explaining why Dumbledore acted as he did when he was so much younger.

    • Posted By: Tayloire @ 10/21/2007 1:46:36 PM

      Solarwind - you are right on the money. You said just what I was thinking myself. I agree wholeheartedly.

  • Posted By: anath @ 10/20/2007 11:55:45 PM

    Eh, why is it such a big deal to Christian Conservatives anyway? They already think the books are the spawn of Satan and all the characters are sinners from the start just for using magic, so its not exactly changing their opinions on the series or characters. Personally, I liked Dumbledore whether he was gay, straight, asexual, bisexual, or really a girl who had a sex change. And I'm a very, very straight person.

    • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 2:33:25 PM

      Lol, good point!!!

  • Posted By: sam32 @ 10/21/2007 11:27:47 AM

    By responding to a question that asked why Dumbledore never loved anyone, J.K. Rowling showed that she apparently feels that gays are not capable of loving anyone. She certainly didn't do the gay community any favors. Do children really care about a character's sexual preference? The children aren't really interested in whether he has sex with men. Why do we have to make everything about sex, especially for children?

    • Posted By: eitaka @ 10/21/2007 2:09:28 PM

      The question was IF he ever loved anyone. Also, being gay is not just about sex. What about abstinent gays? People put their own twist on things and apparently the thought of someone being gay brings sex to your mind. I think that says more about you than it does them. What are you so afraid of?

      • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 2:23:30 PM

        The word sexuality isn't always about sex! It's about love, too! Do kids care about sexuality??? I'm 13, and I started the Gay Sraight Alience at my school, so obviously I care. Middle School is a place in which there is a LOT of homophobia, so its awesome she showed that homosexuals are good people too. She did do us favors. She made one of the most loved charactors gay. It doesn't matter if he wasn't with anyone. And she never said he never loved anyone, she said he DID love someone: Grindlewall. I feel taht saying he was gay made her lesson more real for people.

  • Posted By: dogman @ 10/21/2007 2:11:04 PM

    This is a ploy designed to get free media attention and a shame!

  • Posted By: kellielarue @ 10/21/2007 1:33:31 PM

    Enter Your Comment

  • Posted By: tangleswithtigers @ 10/21/2007 11:09:07 AM

    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.

  • Posted By: Sevharco @ 10/21/2007 10:04:50 AM

    People with read the books if they want to. Just because she stated that Dumbledore is gay is not going to prevent those who want to read it to do so. Though who have hate it from the get go because of magic are still going to hate it whether or not he's gay. Thats just the way it is. It's not like its that apparent in the book. To me it came out as though he had no one to go to and that he did lose someone dear to him in the past, but you don't know that, because Rowling does not come out and say it. Anyways thats my thoughts on it.

  • Posted By: jacksparrow324 @ 10/21/2007 4:09:44 AM

    Being a homosexual myself, i disagree w/ JK's outing of Dumbledore. I don't think it supports gays in any way, and i wouldn't want it to. It' somewhat the reason i dislike the movies, i started reading these books from when they first came out, i had my own mental profile for each character on how they would look, as well as behave, etc. And to me dumbledore i guess was asexual, and i think his character was best left off at that. Dumbledore is supposed to be the wise old man/ grandfather archetype, your not supposed to know about his sexuality. It's the same reason why you don't write about a character actually going to a bathroom to use it. Also i wonder if this is genuine, i mean lets look at JK dealing w/ outside conflicts. Book 1 weasleys owl has turkish name errol so book two gets a reference to an "armenian" warlock. People say the books are satanic, suddenly christmas gets bigger role, and theres mention of churches in scenery, names of places like St. Ottery Catchpole, there's even a bit of "come all ye faithful." I just wonder if somebodey was like why isn't there a gay witch or wizard, and so she thought well harry and his friends all have a bf/gf and snape was in love with harry's mom all these years , and voldermorts incapable of love, so lets make it dumbledore..........idk she should of done it in a couple of years, idk how this would convince anyone who already thinks the books are evil to give them a try

  • Posted By: jacksparrow324 @ 10/21/2007 3:52:19 AM

    Enter Your Comment

  • Posted By: lawrencemonical @ 10/20/2007 1:13:29 PM

    I always thought he had all the qualities you'd want in an Episcopal bishop.

  • Posted By: pinkpenguin @ 10/20/2007 10:49:43 PM

    Of course the series is fiction. The problem I see with Rowling saying this tidbit of information is that there are so many judgemental people in this world. Now the books will be ruined for children simply because of views other people in society have put in their heads. Who are you to judge what is right or wrong for me or any other gay or *** person?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse