I don't care who's gay.

Comments

I think enough people are still upset by homosexuality that when J.K. Rowling decided to out Dumbledore, the people who aren't upset by it were still a little shocked that she "dared" to make that choice for a character in a children's book.

I'm taking an Intellectual Freedom and Youth Library services class and the HP series/books have faced the most challenges and/or been banned more than any other since the late 90s. The literature from the Christian right on the evil behind these books is laughable, frightening and amazing. After the "news" came out, our class forum was full of speculation on how there would be new challenges to the book in different public and school libraries.
[this is good]
Thank you.
Gay people are not deviants.
No, but I am a deviant, and I'm tired of non-deviants getting all the attention because of their sexual orientation.

BTW, Is Beatrice gay?

If she is, it's fine with me.

How you you deviate, exactly? I want details.

I've learned what not to publish online.
Somehow, though, I don't think any of my deviance would shock you.
I'm a bit pressed to think of much I'd consider "deviant" and not just quirky, if we're talking about sex. If it involves (sex and) children, animals, dead things... ok, those are on my deviant list. If it's just riding crops, ropes, dildos, fruit, and candlewax - those are about as deviant as a vanilla milkshake. :-)
[this is good]
Huh, Bill stole my line. He's always doing that. :-)

Good points, kitty.
[this is good]
I live in the SF Bay Area and before coming here was the kind of person that would live in the SF Bay Area (read: more left coasty than many). I have functioning gay-dar, gay friends, gay co-workers, etc, etc etc. For the most part, here, no one notices, no one cares. It's a non-issue (yes, yes, there is a minority that still gets their panties in a bunch about marriage and church related junk, but it's a minority). I was sort of in the dark and naive that people still get antsy about it until last year when in a restaurant in the "Castro" of Phoenix with my older, non Bay Area, conservative, religious siblings. They lost their friggen minds when a couple of guys were expressing their love for each other in chaste, but definite PDA ways. It was really an eye opening experience for me and made me remember that I'm in the minority here in the country, not them. This post reminded me of that, again. I just don't get the fuss.
gayness (rather, one's sexuality) may matter little to you but myohmy it still matters to the vast whole. i can't speak to all this hoopla about dumbledore, i've not read any harry potter. (yes, i admit it.)
[this is good]
*stands on couch, applauds... gets down before wife notices*
@kitty: when I decided I was deviant, you weren't my baseline. Most of America is.

@emily sears: Last time I was back in the state, I snuck into your home and stole a whole bag of your lines. They've been quite useful

@barry Please stop standing on the furniture. Other people are always stuck wiping off your footprints.

@everyone if you're anti-gay, you should visit my office. Moral is so low, it sort of sucks all the gayness and joy out of the air. I think we have dementors flying overhead. Oh, wait, that wasn't the kind of gay we were talking about. Sorry.

I've long felt that sexual orientation only matters when you are actually trying to have sex with someone or they are trying to have sex with you. Outside of that, it's nobody's damn business.

However, I really really hate how the right wing is able to use homosexuality as the shiny object to distract us, meaning the bulk of the American people, from the things that really matter. Little things like health insurance and getting out of the war. Exit surveys showed that a lot of people went to the polls just to be able to vote against gay marriage. Gah.

And while we're on the subject of gay marriage, I hate the fact that people are insisting on fighting for gay "marriage" and refusing to accept the obvious WIN of legal "civil unions." The idea, I thought, was to make a loving bond between two people official and legally protected so that they can take care of each other. By insisting on the "right" semantics the bigger battle is being lost.

Who cares what they call it? The important thing is that if one of you needs life-saving treatment, the other one can sign the ten thousand of pieces of paper the hospital will require to authorize the treatment without having to call the parents you haven't spoken to in 10 years.

:::folds up soapbox, exits stage left:::

ps. I don't care if your Aunt Betty, or anyone else for that matter, is gay either.

[this is good]

I haven't really read the Harry Potter series - mainly know about it from fans who are friends and the fact that it is British means that it is something that receives a lot of media publicity here.

Interestingly I was sitting in a cafe in Waterloo train station with a friend and I overheard an American man in his 50s holding forth to the 2 acquaintances who were having coffee with him. Anyway he suddenly said out of the blue: "Did you hear about Dumbledore from the Harry Potter books? Gay. JK Rowling admitted it in a talk she did the other day."

I just found the way he said it so weird - like he was sharing some juicy gossip - rather than talking about a fictional character.

I'm with you on this......first, I haven't read one Harry Potter book. (the subject matter doesn't sound interesting to me).

Second...I absolutely did not understand the press coverage about a fictional character "coming out". I mean, who gives a shit?

I've just decided that Porky Pig, Beaver Cleaver, Arnold Horshack and The Fonz are all gay.

Sheesh.

It's of interest to those that read the books which is fine - and since the books are so popular Rowling's statement of interest to quite a few people. It was more the way the guy was talking about this at the cafe. V. odd.
@karen and @barry next time I'll remember to bring something for you to stand on. :-)
bea is queer? i knew it!
does this mean i should or shouldn't write children's books?
Should! About a little parrot named Beatrice.

I don't care if your Aunt Betty, or anyone else for that matter, is gay either.

My Aunt Betty is gay? She never told me!

Now she tells us? When I first heard that J.K. Rowling had revealed the homosexuality of Professor Albus Dumbledore, esteemed headmaster of Hogwarts, before a packed congregation of children and adults at Carnegie Hall on Oct. 19, my reaction was half appreciation, half annoyance. Ten years, seven books, 4,000 pages, and it never occurred to her to mention this before? At least she didn't make the gay character a fairy (or a troll), so we'll be spared those jokes, I thought. Rowling's announcement felt almost too strategic, a gotcha! she conveniently withheld until the multibillion-dollar revenue stream had had years to flow. And why bother? The outing of Dumbledore doesn't seriously reshape any plotline in the Harry Potter novels, nor do the books ever drop the kind of hints that would inspire questions from readers. Also, the saga is over, and Dumbledore's, you know, dead, so, like that infamous moment on Law & Order when viewers suddenly learned that one of the show's main characters was a lesbian literally 10 seconds before she left the series, it all seemed a bit easy.

It's not. Rowling is shrewd, but she's not an opportunist or a coward. One simple fact overrode my skepticism: She didn't have to do this. Not now, not later, not with two movies pending, and not in a roomful of kids. And make no mistake: All of these were choices, including her unveiling of a romantic backstory for Dumbledore, lest anyone think she was either joking or throwing a gratuitous pride-parade Patronus at the tiny band of flat-earthers whose shrieks that her books promote witchcraft were long ago drowned out by the world's giggles.

So why now, and why Dumbledore? The answer has much to do with the universe Rowling has created, in which easy assumptions about a character's motives, past, or inner life have, in book after book, been proven wrong, and with her own progressive and humane politics. It's often said that if every gay person in the world were to turn purple overnight, homophobia would disappear: In other words, fewer people would be inclined to vilify other human beings if they woke up one day and discovered that they'd been aiming stones at their college roommate, their aunt, their grocer, or their grandson. Statistics bear this out: People who have a gay family member or friend have more enlightened attitudes about homosexuality than those who don't. What Rowling has done, brilliantly, is to turn Dumbledore purple. She didn't reveal his sexuality in order to unlock a new way of reading the books, or as a provocation. She simply told the world that a main character in the best-loved books of the last 10 years is homosexual, and asked her audience to contend with it — and with the fact that it shouldn't matter. And her choice to make a beloved professor-mentor gay in a world where gay teachers are still routinely slandered as malign influences was, I am certain, no accident.

In addition to the braying of hatemongers, there's already been some umbrage taken at the appropriateness of Rowling's decision to uncork this news in front of children, a brand of sanctimony for which I have no patience. At least one out of 25 of those children will eventually self-identify as homosexual. The other 24, having made their way through an epic series that includes multiple murders, demonic possession, and the psychic toll of having mentally ill parents, will, I imagine, be able to handle the bulletin that some people are gay, and will likely benefit from the richer understanding of the world that such knowledge provides.

This is not a great moment to be a gay consumer of pop culture. In mainstream movies, gay characters are almost nonexistent — once again, the 98-pound weakling who needs Adam Sandler to reassure the straights that gays are just plain folks. And on television, gay people are, like, so five years ago. Now that gays are no longer the flavor of the month, it's easier for networks and studios to leave them out of the recipe altogether. A recent survey by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation showed that only 1.1% of characters on scripted network series are gay, and not a single one is on CBS, The CW, or (shocker!) Fox. That's a drastic underrepresentation of gay presence in the population, and a failure of decency and nerve on the part of the people whose job it is to reflect the world back to us in entertainment — including the tremendous number of gay producers, writers, and executives who sacrifice their convictions so they don't look too ''strident'' or ''political.''

J.K. Rowling's announcement about Dumbledore isn't a plot twist. It's a challenge to look at the world — even a world of wizards and magic — as it really is. Kids are more than up to meeting it. I wish I could say the same about grown-ups.

[this is good]
I agree .. simply put.. people don't we have better things to broadcast across the airways then anyone's sexual orientation.... Ugh!!
@The Sentinel: Wow, thanks for your thoughtful response! Well said.
gays are sinners and go against god's intention when he made humans and the earth 'n' junk.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

kitty

About Me

kitty
United States
it's a funny time of year

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives

goodreads