Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

Thought he and minvera were lovers proves you can be wrong, but pretty cool that he's gay though

Wow. You people really are ridiculous. J.K Rowling was answering questions. She answered things like who Neville wound up with. None of those things are in the books, but she answered questions about them. One of those things was Dumbledore's past. The only relevance it has is to give him some kind of memory of love. Given how he kept saying love was important, I'm rather glad he had at least felt the emotion in his youth.
She's not doing it to sell more books, you idiots. The series is over. And the Bible-bashers can get stuffed. You're gasping and saying you wish you'd never read the books, because she revealed this. It DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. He's still Dumbledore, and paragraphs having him hitting on others allatime haven't suddently appeared in the books. Get over it. Harry has some pretty intense kisses with Ginny, in the last book. So, those are ok but Dumbledore having a thing for Grindelwald, which does not affect the story, is somehow wrong?

Her series, so her ideas are what makes it true. Get over yourselves. Your moral values are irrelevant. Try avoiding bigotry in your reception of texts.
She did not sidestep the issue. It just was not relevant at the time. It would have been gratuitous, like having Harry obsess about Ginny's cup size in detail. She answered a question about how she imagined him. Dumbledore is her intellectual property. She therefore has the right to envision him however she wants. It's like being told where McGonagall grew up; not necessary in the story, but if someone asked, no doubt they'd find that Rowling pictured McGonagall as having grown up in some particular place.

There is no scientific evidence to support that homosexuality isn't a choice?
Mmhm? And what, pray tell, do you call hormones? Too much estrogen?! What is THIS nonsense?! Why that's just silly! Obviously it was a CONSCIENCE choice homosexuals make! It's totally not like attraction is provoked by CHEMICALS in your BODY after all. Yes, what scientific evidence indeed.

There is no scientific evidence to support that homosexuality isn't a choice?
Mmhm? And what, pray tell, do you call hormones? Too much estrogen?! What is THIS nonsense?! Why that's just silly! Obviously it was a CONSCIENCE choice homosexuals make! It's totally not like attraction is provoked by CHEMICALS in your BODY after all. Yes, what scientific evidence indeed.

Homosexuality is not genetic (and there is no sound scentific evidence to support that it is). It is biologically unsound. If it is genetic then the human species would eventually go extinct. It is simply a choice. Gay people should just accept that. They should quit blamming Christains for their problem! Denying it does not change that. Christians don't claim to be perfect, in fact they acknowledge that they are not. That is exactlly what Jesus came to 'clarify" in regards to the law. We are all imperfect beings ands can only be with a perfect God if we are cleansed of that imperfection.

Now to the point of the Dumbledor character being gay. it simply was not necessary to reveal that detail. THe story was compelling enough without that little fact. All Rowling did was alienate more of her fans. I am not sure why she did it except maybe to fullfill some need to be controversial. If she ever really intended her charater to be gay then she shouldn't have side stepped the issue to begin with just to seel me books in America.

I still love the books, I still love Dumbledore. I didn't really think much about the author until this. Now, I don't like her very much. I think she's trying to help gay people out in some way and that's fine. I think she chose a poor mechanism. The series is over, I have read the books and have in my mind who each character is, based on reading the books. I would have preferred that to be either left alone, or to have her write some other books which would include admirable gay characters.

I found a great blog article that broke it down. Before I plagiarize the author google "The Importance Of a Gay Dumbledore" for the lowdown. She basically said that Rowling could never have told us this initially because people are so weird about gays and the books would have never made it in America. I tend to agree. Since Dumbledore is not a drag queen it's a little harder to accept that this is just a cool as all heck Wizard first that happens to be gay.

i dont believe that dumbledore is gay. Just because he never married or expressed love to anyone does not make him gay. Dumbledore's love for Hogwarts was so powerful that he could never put a wife inbetween him and his school. He was completely committed to Hogawarts, and if he was married, his undying love for his school and students would not seem as powerful. In a way, Dumbledore is committed to Hogwarts like a priest is committed to the church, he puts his whole life into his school

I wonder if any of the characters are zoophiles? Or is JK Rowling a bigot like so many others?

For all of you who think that Dumbledore being gay is an afterthought, to get publicity, there is some evidence in the 6th book that suggests that he might be gay. In chapter 13, page 263 (in the hardback edition), Dumbledore is described as wearing a flamboyantly cut suit.

For all of you who think that Dumbledore being gay is an afterthought, to get publicity, there is some evidence in the 6th book that suggests that he might be gay. In chapter 13, page 263 (in the hardback edition), Dumbledore is described as wearing a flamboyantly cut suit.

wow publicity whore?

wow publicity whore?

Oh my goodness...lighten up people, life is too short...LOL

Oh my goodness...lighten up people...geez, LOL

u lie so much just so people will buy ur book, but i wouldnt even buy you a drank u liar. P.S Dumbledore told me that he's not gay so too bad liar liar

this is stupid dumbledore isnt gay and u cant just come out and say that, your only trying to get people to buy your book. I was gonna buy it but now im not, so you just lost$20 Australian dollars.

Look, I understand Shadow_Ace's comment, and really we should move on, but really, slamming faith is just another Faith vs. Science debate. Yes, the maximum number of religions that could possibly be correct is 1 and perhaps they all are incorrect. However, the same could be said about science, because, before quantum theory, scientists thought they had cracked the major mysteries, yet when it came along it completely turned their view of the world upside down. And even if you point out that science is fact, whereas religion is "fiction", there is still the philosophical arguement to be made that nothing can be proven except one's self existance (I think therefore I am) and also that any data cannot be conclusive, because you can never be absolutely precise.

Those points aside, for most of us realize the value of science, I think you should read Thomas Jeffereson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth (it may be Jesus Christ, I don't remember so well). Jefferson took the Bible and removed any reference to heavenly intervention, miracles, ect., leaving just the moral philosophy. It provides an interesting view, that people of all faiths (and those without) should seek with their own religion (and others).

This point is especially true with athiests, because, while science is most definately important, it doesn't teach us to be human. There is no way to quantify ethics, to decide right and wrong, but anyone who says there is no right or wrong, simply Darwinian survival needs to take a trip to a slaughter house. Yes, the strong are meant to thrive, but we are human, we can rise above the simple and shortsighted "survival of the fittest" idea. Or at least we may try for a more perfect world.

And now I go to do my homework. I am still a student, in a public highschool. If you disagree with me, perhaps you should have taught me better.