“There are not enough gay characters in literature, the argument runs, especially in children’s books, which reinforces the view that being gay is unusual and not normal.”
… Sorry, but if you look at this even purely from a scientific point of view - statistical, zoological, physiological - let alone a religious, moral or even anecdotal point of view, I think you’ll find that being gay is indeed unusual and not normal.

From a “purely scientific” point of view, homosexuality has been confirmed across many species including canines, and our closer, simian relatives (ex. chimps). Statistically speaking, one could make the argument that green eyes are “not normal/unusual” as they are found to be less common than say brown eyes. However, this does not make people with green eyes “not normal” just different and in a genetic minority to those with blue or brown eyes. In the case of “morality”, how can you determine one’s morality based on sexual preference? I happen to know many gay people in loving, monogamous relationships while some of my heterosexual friends can’t even remember the first name of the person they slept with the night before. Does this make them more moral than my homosexual friends? Please do not use the guise of science to state was is clearly just an opinion of yours, not fact.

No dears, what ever that Rowling woman says I can assure you he wasn’t gay.

“… Sorry, but if you look at this even purely from a scientific point of view - statistical, zoological, physiological - let alone a religious, moral or even anecdotal point of view, I think you’ll find that being gay is indeed unusual and not normal.”

Your point being? Ok I get the picture that you obvious consider being gay as an abomination, but who said anything about our world being “normal” as you stated…

Im proud that J.K. Rowling decided to add a gay character into the series… even more astounded that is was a character with a grandeur such as Dumbledore. Rowling portrays Dumbledore in a warm, caring, wise, loving, and strong minded.

Rowling has shed light on an issue that is very contraversal world wide. She has aided Gays, Lesbians, bisexual, and trans gender people all around the world by helping to end bigotry.

I thought what was normal for every living being was to be able to reproduce? Therefore homosexuality is not normal and unusual (I didn’t say it should have a finger pointed at). As for the comment on eye colour, having green eyes doesn’t stop you seeing, but having sex with the same sex will stop you breeding…
It is a good thing homosexuality is made more present in literature, as not doing so would be discrimination against a part of the population which fall in this category.

Your missing the point. This is a series of books written for children. Sexual preference has no place in it, has nothing to do with it. It is sick that she felt the need to taint such excellent reads and what could of possibly been concidered classics in the future with sex. Rather twisted world we live in, that sexual preference is bled into something like this.

“I thought what was normal for every living being was to be able to reproduce?”

Come on now, you’re smarter than that. You really are.

Well over 90% of bee and ant populations don’t breed. By an oversimplistic view of evolution, this is an impossibility. In that view, the creatures that do reproduce (queens and their mates) will pass on queen-like and mate-like genes and the drone-like qualities will eventually be weeded out of the gene pool.

As you might have guessed by now, the oversimplistic view is wrong. Evolution is more complex than that.

As it turns out, many animals rely on others in their community to survive. Even non-reproductive members can lead to offspring by creating a friendly breeding environment for others of their species. Since animals are not magic and usually live and breed where they were born and raised, there is a common set of genes shared between all members of the group.

This even applies to suicidal behavior, which is actively anti-breeding (since you can’t breed if you’re dead). The so-called altruistic members of some species are predisposed to sacrificing themselves, such as letting out a yell to alert others when a predator is nearby, even though assures its own death in the process and fleeing was still an option. While that particular creature can’t breed, the other nearby animals have some of the genes (usually recessive) that will continue to produce these non-reproductive members.

Non-reproductive members of a species are indeed normal and in some cases required for some species to survive.

…and on a side note: I always thought Ginny and Hermione would have made a cute couple.

If you don’t put it in the book what’s the point? Next we’ll here that this character was bi, this one was this and that one was that. I guess everyone should go buy all the books and see all the movies (or is it buy the books and DVDs) so they can rewatch everything knowing that Dumbledore was gay.

It seems more like a self-serving publicity stunt than anything else. Pathetic.

I don’t see how this revelation in line with JK’s “prolonged argument for tolerance and an end to bigotry.”

Why? Because Dumbledore wasn’t openly gay. If he was (even if it only gets a tiny bit on the books), that that would be a better case of that ‘tolerance’ story line that JK is now saying she’s trying to do — to portray that the people in the book was tolerant/intolerant of Dumbledore, having something (even just a little) to do with his sexual orientation.

Nothing against this revelation, just a little inconsistency… which makes this more of a PR move.

* To Biologist: wouldn’t you say that homosexuality is an anomaly then, if it doesn’t help the species to reproduce? Strictly from the biological perspective, that is…

Come on, Karen, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Harry and Ginny, Lupin and Tonks… The list of characters who inject sexuality into the “books for children” goes on and on, you just don’t “see” it because you have a narrow-minded view of what is normal and what is “twisted”. Sexual preference “bled” into the stories almost from the beginning, I’m afraid.

The argument that “Dumbledore is a sympathetic character, Dumbledore is gay, therefore gayness is made sympathetic” is a very faulty and simplistic syllogism that is insulting to anyone of even moderate intelligence who engages with the books in any way.

Like any other medium, books should not be seen as things that provide only instruction, and the readers (children or adults) are just passive recipients of lessons; child readers should be taught to engage with books, to question and to ask questions.

If Harry Potter books are the only books (or media) that your child hears or sees, and your child accepts their own naive first-impression interpretation of the material as The Word, then it is not Rowling who has failed your child; it is YOU who have failed your child.

change spelling of second “Rowlings” above to “Rowling”. My bad

To the person who comments that from a statistical, zoological…being gay is unusual and not NORMAL. Let’s be clear about nrmal, btw - it means NOT THE NORM. it does not mean defective.

Mozart’s genius was unusual and not normal.
Being a red head is unusual and not normal (as it is a recessive gene and therefore rare).
Co-joined twins are unusual and not normal.

Many things are unusual and not normal when you look at them them as statistics.

Too many people spend too much time trying to control or eliminate or supress what is unusual and not normal. Humaity would be so much better off if we concentrated our energy on supressing, elininating and controlling what was detrimental and harmful irrespective of the statistical frequency of occurrence in the scope of human experience.

Gay or ot gay Dumbledore was clearly a heroic and noble character.

OK Chris C
Being gay is like being an ant or a bee or a screaming autistic thing.

Gimme a break… yes there would be no life on earth if not for gays… yeah baby

What’s all this about how great it is to have an “openly-gay” character? Nobody even seriously guessed that he was gay, so it was far from “open”. It’s an insult to gays and the series that this comes out after the fact. If he’s gay, great; but that should have been in the books to have any sort of meaning. As it is, most people will see it as a PR student and most right thinking folks will think it’s an insult to gay people since she didn’t have the courage to say it until the series was over.

Here’s the thing. I don’t have any problem with gay people. I don’t have any problem with gay characters in literature. However, if it’s not talked about in the book, how is there any basis for this character being gay? It would be one thing if she referenced it throughout the series, but she didn’t. Frankly, she was right not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the story and now it’s just this information we have hanging out there that detracts from what the story is really about. Good for her in publishing an encyclopedia. Maybe in it she’s going to go back and tell the story of Grindevald and Dumbledore’s love affair. I don’t know. What this looks like to me though, is a shot to get people to go back through the books looking for gay subtext, giving her publicity and more cash.
I hate it when authors do things like this, because it’s really not fair to the reader. When you release a text (novel, film, poem, painting etc), you’re giving the reader license to take their own meaning from it. You give clues of course, but if your writing doesn’t get them there, then you’re not really allowed to just tell them that this what they were supposed to get out of it. Imagine if tomorrow George Lucas tells us that actually Obi Wan Kenobi is gay. A relative of Tolkien’s finds a letter stating that Gandolf was gay. The same thing happens with CS Lewis and it turns out Aslan was actually gay (and a cross dresser!). None of it is supported by the text and it has absolutely nothing to add to the story. I think teaching tolerance of all walks of life be they religious, racial, sexual orientation or whatever else there is is great and kids should be exposed to it. But this? This is a cheap stunt.

Um, if Harry Potter was supposed to be this prolonged argument for the end of bigotry…

Where are the Muslim wizards? How about the Jewish ones?

No? I didn’t read about any Hindu or Buddhist wizards either.

In fact, were it not for the movie, I’d have assumed everyone in Hogwarts was white.

I think we have bigger grounds still to transverse with regards to racial and religious acceptance…

Calling the inclusion of a gay person a huge step forward in the battle against bigotry when all people with a brown complexion are being labeled as terrorists and no one’s even batting an eye…

It seems a tad overdone don’t you think?

Want to be a REAL shaker and mover for civil rights? Create a storybook where the main character is Muslim. See how that one sells.

YES, absolutely we need more gay characters in books. What a ridiculous question. There is nothing to hide or nothing negative about being born gay. Furthermore the gay characters being just as normal as non-gay characters should be treated just as normal!!

This is beyond disappointing to me. Why does the sexual preference of any character in the Harry Potter series matter. It has nothing to do with any of the story lines. It makes you wonder if there really is a gay agenda out there. So many positive comments of support. As a heterosexual - it does not matter to me at all. I now have to explain to explain this to my children - thanks Rowling.

While typing my original post, I found myself looking for another analogy for what Rowling has done and, fool that I am, I found it just as I was hitting the “submit comment” button. Anyway, what hit me was this: Mormons often baptize their dead relatives into Mormonism. I’m not making a value judgement on Mormonism, but it’s a similar situation here. Were I to become a Mormon, I might baptize my Late Great Grandfather, a Lutheran pastor, into Mormonism. This would mean something to me, but it wouldn’t change who my Great Grandfather was. The same is true of Dumbledore. Rowling has ownership over the character, and can choose to say what she likes, but like their being no evidence of my Great Grandfather being a Mormon, there is no evidence of Dumbledore being gay. I therefore don’t think we as readers need to accept Rowling’s word on this one.

Get a life, encourage children to read literature
not witchcraft stories
In our culture there are so many imaginative childrens books past & present It will help their English in the long run

How irresponsible of JK. This, however, gives me another reason to flag her books as harmful to the spirit and soul of mankind. If you want an answer to why so much has gone wrong in this world, you need look no further than JKs books for one example. She puts poop in the brownies. Just enough mind you that after consuming enough, you begin to become sick. However, the sickness that promoting a gay agenda causes is determinant to the soul.

The “tolerance” people are fine with everyone’s view - unless it differs from their own. How ironic, don’t you think?

Shame on you JK.

You ever notice that Horton heard a Who but didn’t have a wife..hmmmmm… and there’s the Childrens classic “Chet and Mark have lost their Cat” can you help them find Mr. Binky? Published by NAMBLA.

To ‘Brendan’
Again, this has to do with choice…

I find it amusing that so many people are saying things like “I had no idea he was gay from reading the books, but had I known, I would not have read them!” If you couldn’t even figure it out from the books, then what would you have avoided by not reading them? Giving unintentional support to the non-explicit sexuality of a fictional character?

Your point is moot, considering that the author HAS come out and stated Dumbledore was gay. Now the books must be read in that light. It is her intent. Now to go further into reading, discussion and watching the movies requires you to rethink it. Rediscuss it in this new light. So again Brendan, I have a choice not to want to make these books and movies a connecting point for my child and myself. I have no interest in discussing the sexual preferences of fictional characters with my son. With Ron and Hermione it was not a focal point, Rowling has made Dumbledore’s sexual preference a focal point now, especially in the manner in which she chose to do so. This was a bombshell.

How the hell is he “openly gay” when Rowling made thedeclaration after her last book in the series. I mean how the hell is this even a point of discussion? She could just as well go back and say all the characters were gay at this point. She’s just trying to drum up more business and keep her name in the headlines now that she’s pretty much finished as an author. It just means that Ian McKellum (sp) should have gotten the role as Dumbledore in the first place.

Rowling wrote some very entertaining books which made her very wealthy and famous. I think she was losing some of the fuss over her and wanted the spotlight again. I notice she didn’t write any love interests for Dumbledore into the books when it could have affected her sales. When this dies down it’ll be Sirius Black next or maybe a 3-way. She needs to let it go and move on.

This is actually more accurate to real life than most people know. People of homosexual orientation appear quite normal when you know them as they are- a person. Your local librarian, the old lady at church who bakes the best cookies, the burly gas station attendant, and yes, the wise, fair, and just professor. Most gay people are not the ones who go to gay bars and wear thongs in gay pride parades. They are respectable, intelligent, average people who while not flaunting their sexual oreintation to everyone, are productive memebers of our society, who happen to be gay. Congratulations to the author, and to those skeptics, please keep in mind that this is like real life. The best of people you know might very well be gay, and that is a wonderful thing.

Poor sad people. Could anybody care less??

And P.S. … The kids at the reading *asked* J.K. if Dumbledore was gay. She didn’t volunteer the information, so the “this is a publicity stunt” argument doesn’t exactly hold water. If you look at her site, there are all kinds of things that she as an author knows about the characters, things that weren’t necessary for the story. One of those things happened to be this thing, and this thing was one of the questions she was asked.

Passive,
The kids asked if Dumbledore ever fell in love, not if he was gay. Most authors would speak hypothetically in response to a question like that, not try to add something to canon that was never there.

and as for the totally off topic comment on children reading about witch craft-that\’s stupid. It\’s a fantasy, and like most fantasies-it\’s not stuff that has or will ever happen. Let\’s not encourage our children to be so closed minded. I don\’t hear anyone whining about Tolkien\’s books and there\’s just as much witch craft in it.

I applaude the person who brought up the fact that JK was asked the question, she didn’t volunteer it, because it’s perfectly true. It was not a publicity stunt - it was an honest anwer to a question about her characters. And if asked if someone has ever been in love, the fact that someone is gay or straight matters a great deal, especially since she then told everyone who Dumbledore loved - Grindewald. As to the people who say that is has nothing whatsoever to do with the story, that is completely untrue. It had a lot to do with DUmbledore’s motives behind not fighting Grindewald.
Also, as to keeping your kids innocent and all that, well, kids watch/read propoganda about sex ALL THE TIME, in almost every Dinsey movie the lead male falls in love with the lead female, and they often kiss, which alludes to sexual desire. THis is also a common theme in most fairy tales; the prince falling in love with the beautiful princess,etc… However, because it’s heterosexual, everyone’s fine with it. But the moment love is homosexual, people scream that we’re corrupting our children. I find something rather sick about that. If you want to protect your children from sextality, than protect them from ALL sexuality, not just homosexuality.
And to the person who said that being gay was not the norm, my response to you is how on earth would you know? How on earth would anyone know how common being gay is? All we can rely on is statistics, and all statistics measure is how many openly gay people there are in society, which admittedly is bellow average. But all gay people? Do you really think that everyone’s going to be completely honest about that? Do you really think a mostly straight person with some bisexual tendencies is actually going to mention that in a survey? So how on earth can we possibly measure just how common being gay or being bi is? My guess is that it is much more common than you might think, and the reason so many people are so hostile to it is because they have suppressed bisexual or gay tendencies themselve that they have never allowed themselves to feel, and the fact that someone is openly gay threatens them because of that.
Either way, it is not a big deal. So what that Dumbledore’s gay? I think it’s great that a revered character in a children’s book turns out to be gay, but why all the fuss? Would you make the same fuss if you found out that Dumbledore had had a love affair with a woman? No. Anyway, it’s great, but I really don’t see why everyone was so shocked about it, because, frankly, I saw it coming.
Oh, and purposefully not reading a book because it has a character who happens to be gay is called being prejiduce. That’s like being angry that the author came out that DUmbledore is really Jewish, and if you had known that, you would have made the decision not to read the book. Yes, it’s your choice, but it’s a prejudiced, closeminded choice.
Oh, and I think the Patil twins were supposed to be Hindu, but I absolutely agree with whoever said that, that there should be a Muslim main character in a children’s book. But a lot of Harry Potter characters were not white - there was a surprising amount of racial variety for a small english private school.
Anyway, I don’t understand why being gay is considered such a big deal. It’s someones lifestyle. Get over it.

Clearly JK Rowling (or whatever her real name is) is just trying to be a good lib here…but failing.

First: The question she was asked is whether or not the character would ever find true love. The correct answer (if JK really felt being homosexual was normal) would have been a yes, no or we’ll never know. “Dumbledore is gay,” is not an answer to that question, unless you’re implying that gays cannot find true love.

Second: As some other posters have mentioned, sexual orientation doesn’t need to be addressed in children’s books, or in reference to children’s books. It’s time perverts realized that sex is not for kids.

i am quite upset aobut this..and not because of his sexuallity, like Gandalf from lord of the rings, i always saw Dumbledore as a non-sexual being, and this has become part of the character that i have created (through JK Rowling)for him. why should he be interested in sex when he has such a gift and responsibility for the world and harry… its kind of like when u read a book, then see the character played in the movie by a compltly inapproprite actor.
grrr..

“It seems more like a self-serving publicity stunt than anything else. Pathetic.”

Finally, somebody with sense. Wake up people.

iowagirl, bravo! Your post shows education and

This is NOT a publicity stunt. What an insane suggestion! She is INFINITELY RICH AND FAMOUS, and there are no more Potter sequels coming; she does not need publicity. Let’s put the idea that it was for publicity to rest. (If you think her announcement is going to make sales of the Potter series go up, I’m afraid you’re wrong.)

Sometimes I wonder if many of the people who post here READ any of the previous comments…?

“And surely he is just the character you wanted him to be! I believe it’s clear he lived out his life at Hogwarts in a non-sexualized fashion, and it’s clear why - but not until the book’s end. He was badly burned by the whole episode, and he learned that, although love is the most powerful magic there is, it can leave you susceptible to the lowest of human impulses if you make poor choices in love and allow yourself to be bent by its awesome force.

Isn’t that in large part what you thought he was, and wanted him to be? Maybe this Dumbledore is more complicated and burdened, but he is no less majestic for all he’s been through. I think Rowling succeeded brilliantly with his character on many levels.\”

Iowa girl, yours was a well-thought and clearly stated point and had Rowling actually put all of that in the books I would definitely agree with you. Of course the story of Grindevald is in the books, but she gives no hint of their friendship going beyond being platonic. What comes next? If she had wanted the character to be gay and serve as a positive gay role model then she should have written him that way. I don’t argue with him being gay because I have a problem with him being gay. I just have a problem with an author telling fans how they should interpret characters.

As for you Toby, why does Paris Hilton continue to appear in public doing whatever it is she does? She has enough money to live whatever life she wants. Ditto any celebrity. Publicity stunts aren’t always just about money. Unless Rowling decides to go back on her word and write more HP books, that series is done which means her time in the spotlight is done. I personally will find it very sad if she spends the rest of her life telling people what she actually intended for each of the characters. You get the pages of the book to tell the story. There are no do overs. If Dumbledore being gay wasn’t important enough to be placed in the story, then it should be up to the reader to decide.

There aren’t gays in childrens books because it is unusal! It isn’t right and no one should support that lifestyle because it is a choice and not a state of mind. For all you fags out there don’t try and say otherwise because you know it is. The aren’t two different sexes for no reason you idiots. Dumbledore should be straight and i don’t see the problem of him being straight.

I mean, honestly, SO WHAT? It doesn’t do anything for the plot nor was it relevant or hinted at all in the story. I am all for more (outed) gay characters in fiction, but Rowling’s so-called “revelation” is utterly irresponsible and almost condescending in the sense that she failed to include such crucial information in the GODDAMN ACTUAL BOOK! (if she really did decided he’s gay from book 1 as she proclaims instead of some sudden, thoughtless, blurted-out, issue-making confession)It doesn’t do anything!

As a mum of six, I’m glad I drew the line at the Potter series the first day I heard of it. There are far more worthwhile pieces of literature for my children to read than this series. I’m very blessed to have had discernment in this area.

Regarding the row over sexual preference, the alternate decision to choose a lifestyle of homosexuality, bestiality, or self-love (masturbation)is a moral–not genetic–one.

Ours is a predominantly foolish, arrogant society operating under free-will choices. When we lean on our own understanding and flaunt our pathetic human intellectualism as being wiser than that of the loving God who created us, we are to be pitied. Unfortunately, our choice to rebel and ignore His wise precepts always results in eventual heartbreak, chaos–and ultimately–death.

I find this one thing disturbing: how people on this board admittedly shield themselves (and their kids) off from what’s uncomfortable to them, and this only adds to their ignorance. They refuse to get to know people that are gay out of fear that what they’ve been taught about them through stereotypes and authority might be actually be wrong. Now that this experience has been forced upon them by Rowling’s recent comments, many have hard time reconciling how Dumbledore can be “good” while still being gay. But how else are ignorant people going to confront their preconceived notions if not voluntarily? Of course, many of you are angry, but is it really because of Rowling’s comment, or because you might have been unfair in judging people?

It’s mainly the people have been unfairly judged and stereotyped in the past that realize the shear cost of ignorance to everyone, including those that unfairly judge. That’s the sad part: as long as the ignorant are ignorant, they will never know. Plus, they demonize the people who dare try to enlighten them.

Adam…
Are you serious?? You really thought that Parvatti Patil and Cho Chang were white kids. If this is the case I think the Harry Potter books may be a bit above your reading level. I would suggest the “Dick and Jane” series.

Response to: “I thought what was normal for every living being was to be able to reproduce? Therefore homosexuality is not normal and unusual…”

You’re right! Go tell all those post-menopausal women to stop having sex, the goddamn perverts.

J.K. Rowling gave us clues from the start. I think her emphasis on how he dressed (rather oddly colored clothing even for a Wizard) was the biggest clue. Do I really care? No. To me, Dumbledore was just another wizard, albeit a great one. It’s just part of who he is. Nothing to get worked up over so I don’t really think anyone should have a problem with it.

And to someone who said that not being able to reproduce isn’t normal, what about all the women who have to adopt or have someone else carry a child for them? How is that unnatural? Or the men who just can’t produce enough spermatozoa to impregnate a woman?

James Baxter says…

“if the author chosses to make dumbledore gay, he’s gay. end of story.”

I dont think that we should be so quick to make that statement. Where does the authority of the story lie. Does it the authority belong to the author, the reader, or within the text itself. James seems to think that the author has complete and utter control on the interpretation of the text. The problem is this. The “harry potter” canon is closed. The books, as far as we know, are over. Dumbledore has take shape and stands as a literary figure in our minds. Rowlings post-canonized statements about him only reflect the what is real within the book if you give her all of the authority within the text.
What if rowling said that Harry Potter is actually a girl, or that the magic in the book was just a a mixture of chemistry and a better understanding of physics. Would her readers accepts that?
Anyways, the point is this. I think that once the story is over, Dumbledore steps out of her hands and becomes a person on his own. If she says he’s gay, so what. The story doesn’t say that. We all have to determine that on our own. The fact that he is gay is only her interpretation of the text.

People in the Bible belt need to grow up and get an education, for one thing. You don’t “promote” a sexual orientation. It’s not a choice. At what age did you choose to be heterosexual, and what homosexual experiences did you have before hand to allow you an informed decision? One’s sexual orientation does not diminish their ability to be a role model, foster intelligence or hold capacity for humanity and compassion. (Although it seems religion sure does) So what if Dumbledore was gay? Jesus was a cross-dresser.

Wietske: I agree. There might not’ve been any evidence given as to wether he was gay, but none was given as to wether he was straight. And some people are straight out being homophobic.

I think she was presured by the news reportes and to get them out of her way, told me then that he was gay. If you read the book, he had a girlfriend who died and he decided to stay alone, I lot of people do that, so there is nothing wrong with been single all your life.

This revelation was actually previewed with this video.

Dumbledore is in there- can you find him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeT4Il7V 2U

Tony,
Why so homophobic? If someone’s gay, what’s the big deal.

Look, I don’t care about the religious, moral, passion or precreation debates for now, even though i admit they are important. What i want to know is why she hinted that he was gay? what in the books was supposed to lead us to believe this?