Dumbledore Is Gay

I don't think there's much to say about this, except that it seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don't possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn't feel the need to announce details like this after the fact, and a writer who understood the strengths and limitations of her creation would recognize that trying to smuggle this level of psychological realism into the Potter series is a fool's errand that can only diminish her achievement - by reminding adult readers of what it isn't (a serious work of realistic fiction, I mean), rather than letting them enjoy it for the gripping, inventive children's fantasy it is.

Update: My response to Neil Gaiman's remarks is here.

Comments

Or alternatively, Dumbledore is gay and J.K Rowling is helping to explicate some of the nuances in the novels that weren't obvious to her readers.

Posted by Joseph | October 21, 2007 7:20 PM

I agree, Joseph. Right after finishing book 7, I thought "Is Dumbledore a virgin?" Given that Rowling explained the type of car Ron drives by the end, I thought it strange that such a critical character had no explication of his love life.

Posted by Sam | October 21, 2007 9:06 PM

I think it would have promoted a much more interesting message had she dealt straight forwardly with Dumbledore's homosexuality in the books. For a set of novels all about diversity and driving home the message of tolerance to not have an openly gay character, or deal with the issue at all, was a significant lapse and an act of either willfull, or ignorant, omission. Another example of preaching tolerance but omitting the life experience of a group the most in need of the tolerance of others.

Posted by Jim | October 21, 2007 9:24 PM

To Jim: you'd be 100% correct if the writer could safely assume a readership that is either entirely over 16 or has had the benefit of a humanist education. Adding sexuality to the mix would be an unwelcome distraction to some younger children and a red flag for a certain number of concerned parents and educators.

Posted by Palmer | October 21, 2007 11:11 PM

Sam: Was that really your first thought? Maybe it's the influence of Catholicism and the (mostly celibate) saints, but I kind of expect wise old sage figures to be unmarried and with little if any romantic history. Gandalf didn't have much of a love life, did he?

Posted by James Kabala | October 21, 2007 11:18 PM

For a set of novels all about diversity and driving home the message of tolerance to not have an openly gay character, or deal with the issue at all, was a significant lapse and an act of either willfull, or ignorant, omission. Another example of preaching tolerance but omitting the life experience of a group the most in need of the tolerance of others.

Really, Jim? I don't know where to start.

OK, got it: First of all, it's an allegorical tale that includes themes of diversity and tolerance but emphatically does not take place in the world we inhabit. Rowling deals with real world issues primarily by analogy (Muggles/Wizards)instead of realism or brute force tokenism. The message of tolerance gets delivered even though it's contained in an openly gay envelope. And even if she didn't use parallel structures, I can't imagine a construction of her duties as an author that would require her to include an openly gay character. Secondly, novelists aren't engaged in "preaching," their job is to show us a compelling world, illuminate its foundational truths, populate it with interesting characters, dramatize their conflicts . . . not to sermonize at us from no pulpit in particular. Finally, must an omission that is not willful be "ignorant"? Could it not be intuitive or at least innocent?

There's something cold and pitiless about criticizing a work of art because it doesn't conform to your politics. And if we can find a way to appreciate admirable things that don't advance our particular agenda, maybe we'll all become more tolerant in an important way.

Posted by southpaw | October 21, 2007 11:25 PM

On the one hand, it is a weirdly ex post facto revelation. On the other hand, it does make me wonder if there was some level of subtlety I simply didn't pick up on.

One thing's for sure: This will generate tomes of kinky fanfiction. Dumbledore/Everyone!

Posted by Immoralist | October 21, 2007 11:29 PM

Who's Dubledoor?

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 22, 2007 1:16 AM

To James Kabala: Much of Deathly Hallows is devoted to breaking down the conception that Dumbledore is nothing more than a "wise old sage figure." (Plus, I think Sam was being sarcastic.)

To Ross: I don't think Rowling's smuggling anything. This revelation of what was on her mind provides some interesting subtext for those who are interested, and doesn't interfere with the reading experience for those who aren't. I'm impressed at how unobtrusive it was.

Posted by algernon | October 22, 2007 3:32 AM

But it was fairly obvious from book six on that Dumbledore was gay. In fact, the biggest problem with Dumbledore's outing is that it reveals how stereotypical Rowling's description of him was. Reread the flashbacks from book six and see how many lines like "then Dumbledore minced prettily down the street in his purple robe" there are.

Posted by Harry and the Potters | October 22, 2007 6:12 AM

J.K. Rowling is a mediocre writer at best, and won't be remembered 100 years from now. She is to Tolkien (or CS Lewis) what a McDonald's hamburger is to filet mignon.

Posted by Bede | October 22, 2007 8:58 AM

Ross-

If Rowling isn't "confident in her powers" has a true novelist, I'm sure she can buy some. Don't you think a writer of her calibre and success possesses plenty of that confidence you believe she lacks to be capable of pulling off a seven volume story so well received by children and adults alike?

Posted by guerrilla | October 22, 2007 9:09 AM

Adding sexuality to the mix would be an unwelcome distraction to some younger children and a red flag for a certain number of concerned parents and educators.

I hate to break it to you, but young adult fiction is just about obsessed with sexuality, and with good reason-- it's audience is at a time in their lives when sex is a singularly important issue. Not because they are engaging in the act of sex, but because they're pubescent and their lives are changing because of it. And whether it exists explicitly in the narrative (and the "teenage-girl-in-crisis" storyline is one of the predominant modes in young adult lit), or through allegory or symbolism, which is in almost every young adult novel, there's sex all over the place in the genre.

There's something cold and pitiless about criticizing a work of art because it doesn't conform to your politics.

I nearly laughed out loud when I read that, considering it's here on this blog, where Douthat seems to think that merely recognizing the liberal politics in a movie amounts to a damning criticism.

Posted by Freddie | October 22, 2007 9:10 AM

Algernon: OK, I freely confess to only having read through Book Two. Maybe I shouldn't have commented. (I am aware of the whole - SPOILER - suicide pact thing, though. If there was a lot of angsty stuff like that in the final books, then a sudden revelation about his sexuality seems less out of place.)

Posted by James Kabala | October 22, 2007 9:25 AM

Does something even qualify as a work of art today unless it involves a polite bow to the gay agenda? Contrarily, could a serious work of literature (or whatever) ever gain acclaim that was critical of the gay lifestyle?

Being gay is the greatest thing ever. I get it. Madness.

Posted by Tim | October 22, 2007 9:50 AM

Jesus, there are still people who say "the gay lifestyle"?

Posted by Brendan | October 22, 2007 10:32 AM

I suspect Ms. Rowling is laying the groundwork for another book in the series. She may not need the money but I'm sure she enjoyed being in the limelight....and in a few years I bet she will try to get back in the limelight by coming out with another installment.

Just as a semantic issue, can we really call someone 'gay' if they had a single non-consummated infatuation in their teenage years? Can one really be a 'non-practicing' homosexual, or does that terminology not even make sense?

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 22, 2007 11:54 AM

There's something cold and pitiless about criticizing a work of art because it doesn't conform to your politics.

We've surely heard that whine so often that it itself has become cold and pitiless, or at least unoriginal and cynically political. Worst of all, it seems misapplied here. If an author makes a creative decision that offends some rule of political correctness but aspires to literary greatness, then sure, rally to her defense.

But here we're talking about something that would have made the novels deeper and more interesting (apparently in Rowling's estimation if she's now coming clean with it) being hidden not because it would offend not the PC Left but because it would offend the Bigot Right. (Acknowledging the existence of a homosexual relationship is no more "adding sexuality" than acknowledging a heterosexual one). So if anyone's valuing politics over art, it wasn't Jim.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 22, 2007 11:56 AM

Tim,

What exactly is the gay agenda? And how would Dumbledore being gay serve an agenda? What would be the point of such an agenda? Obviously, you cannot make people gay by watching a lot of Will and Grace.

Posted by mike | October 22, 2007 11:58 AM

No, Tim, you don't get it. Being gay is not the greatest thing ever. Quite simply, it is a way of being that is constantly attacked by a bunch of authoritarian jerks, and so it is sensible to portray it as merely a legitimate way of being.

Posted by pedro | October 22, 2007 12:45 PM

a writer of her calibre

Which is...? Yes, Rowling is a phenomenon. Yes, the novels (at least the first 3.5 and parts of the latter ones, though not so much the last one) are a hoot, fine mystery stories with the pleasurable trappings of a school story, told with servicable but hardly choice words and sentences.

Rowling's good, and probably good enough on the strength of the combination to stick around a while -- but there are similar (though lesser) popular books and authors that are now utterly forgotten (look at the bestsellers from the early 20th century, including children's books).

Dumbledore seems to me to fit into an earlier, and rather uninteresting type of gay figure (to the extent he is one in the books at all, which is minimal) -- he's an asexual pseudo-saint! "I love my dead gay headmaster" and such aside, the big problem with the Potter books is that after such fun entries, the end was a little bit of a slog, ending in long expository speechs robbing battles of their tension and a lot of semi-explained deus ex machina -- without the school story or mystery trappings that might have made it all good. That Dumbledore fancied the other Very Smart Wizard he ever met doesn't really do much one way or the other about the problems with the last book.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 22, 2007 1:05 PM

I think Rowling dropped a number of hints along these lines in the books, particularly in Book 7 where he admits to an obsessive "friendship" with a young man that blinded him to the man's faults. I'm surprised that she came out (so to speak) and announced this so directly, but it really isn't surprising that she envisioned Dumbledore as a gay character while writing the books. He's an old bachelor with a flamboyant taste in clothing. Adult readers really shouldn't need to read Cliff's Notes to get the hint.

It does bother me, to some extent, that Rowling keeps publicly announcing character details that aren't included in the books. With any work of fiction, particularly an imaginative work of children's literature, the printed words are only part of the experience. Every reader experiences the book differently and fills in the gaps from their own imagination. For an author to try to control that experience through the media is somewhat depressing. I understand she's being badgered by millions of people for more details, but she really ought to resist the urge.

But I guess it was savvy of her to wait until after all the gay-bashers had purchased her books before alienating them.

Posted by Random Passerby | October 22, 2007 1:17 PM

"[I]t seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don't possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn't feel the need to announce details like this after the fact..."

I think this is a misjudgment of not only what Rowling did but of the whole Potter phenomena.

First, it's like she called a press conference and breathlessly annouced that a main character was GAY! and isn't she PROGRESSIVE and DEEP etc etc. What happened was she responded to a question. And why was she responding to the question? Because people want to know.

What's the Hufflepuff common room like? Chances are, you don't care. But you know who does: a not insignificant percentage of the Harry Potter fandom (which is itself a not insignificant percentage of the, uh, population). There was no real reason to put a description of that in the books. But there are fans who wanted to know (as it happens, it's cozy). There is a vast amount of minute detail on the Potter world that a lot of people want to hear about. Rowling is now answering those questions. If she had said: "Dumbledore was in love with Augusta Longbottom" then that would have been a perfectly banal answer that still would have been of interest to some people. As it happens, in the background information she had, that's not the team he batted for. Should she have lied?

Posted by Jacob | October 22, 2007 1:44 PM

Via Drezner (who links an entertainment blog), the quote I saw by Rowlings is "I always saw Dumbledore as gay" (the Time magazine link has her saying "Dumbledore is gay").

To me, there's a distinction between the two phrases. The latter phrase, being more direct, sounds more like what Ross is suggesting, a post-publishing revisionism. The former phrase sounds more like she is describing what she thought, as in "I wrote the story with the idea of Dumbledore being gay, but it wasn't my intention to make that fact explicitly known".

I myself never considered Dumbledore gay, and never once wondered about whether or not he had any relationships. The only facts we're given about his life are those that are pertinent to Harry's story, and so it makes sense that we would see more details about Harry's best friend Ron than the old headmaster from Hogwarts.

Posted by mitch | October 22, 2007 1:48 PM

I always thought there was something really weird and messed up about him, that he could change if he wanted to.

Posted by hmmm... | October 22, 2007 2:14 PM

Pedro writes, "No, Tim, you don't get it. Being gay is not the greatest thing ever. Quite simply, it is a way of being that is constantly attacked by a bunch of authoritarian jerks, and so it is sensible to portray it as merely a legitimate way of being."

I, in fact, do get it and have done my best to think about the matter with some care. I regard homosexual activity as deeply disordered. I need not hold such a position on religious grounds. My view is rooted in human reason and the basic facts of human biology. I will continue to hold such views, even in face of bigotry like yours.

I dare say it is also the view of the gracious host of this site.

Posted by Tim | October 22, 2007 2:48 PM

I don't see it as that surprising - Rowling has always had additional story details in her head, and the readers are interested, so "Dumbledore is gay" strikes me a little bit like other interview details, such as "Crookshanks is a hybrid cat and some guardian-cat-magical-species-that-I-forget".

Certainly, mentioning it in an interview would be better than an Elizabeth Rohm style "Is this because I'm a lesbian?" as Snape zaps him.

Posted by J Mann | October 22, 2007 3:04 PM

Hrm, the Augusta Longbottom comparison is fair. Rowling may have been angling for the spotlight less than it at first seemed. Perhaps it is that I find the whole world of fan-fiction and obsessing on these details a bit subliterary and tedious. Maybe that's not fair -- people I respect, such as Eve Tushnet, seem to find this more interesting.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 22, 2007 3:04 PM

Tim: nothing I said warrants your calling me a bigot. It reflects quite poorly on you to do so. If you don't get why, think very carefully about it, and elementary reason--the same you claim leads you to conclude that homosexuality is wrong--should make it very clear to you why.

I have not claimed (nor do I claim) that it is illegitimate for people to regard homosexuality as immoral, disorderly, or what-have-you, on whatever grounds (religious or not). I have simply said that since there are a bunch of authoritarian jerks out there that attack gays (the sort of people to whom the word 'bigot' actually does apply), it is perfectly sensible for a writer to depict homosexuality as a legitimate way of being. The fact that this upsets you is something over which only you (and your rational mind) have control, but it hardly justifies your re-interpreting the depiction of homosexuality as legitimate as the glorification of homosexuality.

Posted by pedro | October 22, 2007 3:15 PM

I disagree. Rowling is wrong. Dumbledore is not gay. If I knew his address, I would get him to tell you so himself! If his name were "Dumbledorfe" then he'd be gay.

Posted by Zebnatto | October 22, 2007 3:30 PM

Gandalf didn't have much of a love life, did he?

You'd be surprised.

Posted by Mike | October 22, 2007 4:24 PM

Even if one doesn't regard homosexuality as a sin, or a morally disordered state, I think most people would stop short of seeing it as equally 'natural' as heterosexuality. So the argument that if a book portrays a boy-girl romantic affair, it should also portray a gay one, seems a little bit absurd. One could view it something like blindness, or lameness, or mental retardation- an inborn condition that is not a moral fault on the part of the people who possess it (or in this case, who act on it) but which is still a deficiency and an affliction to be pitied rather than something to be celebrated.

(I'm not saying that this is my view; I am as yet agnostic on what the moral status of homosexuality should be, and waiting to be convinced...I'm hoping that in particular gay Christians will be able to articulate a convincing case that convinces me. I'm simply making the argument that there is a long way between concluding that homosexuality ought not to be repressed by the law or by social discrimination, and concluding that it is 'just as good' as anything else.)

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 22, 2007 4:27 PM

"My view is rooted in human reason and the basic facts of human biology."

So, in other words, your view is that homosexuality is a matter of natural variation within the human race and the "gay agenda" is basically limited to demanding that people be treated fairly and equally.

Oh, wait... I'm sorry. That's not your view. You actually just have some sort of grudge against the gays which you try to justify with a bunch of BS. I got confused there for a minute.

Posted by Random Passerby | October 22, 2007 4:38 PM

So the argument that if a book portrays a boy-girl romantic affair, it should also portray a gay one, seems a little bit absurd.

Indeed it does! Luckily for us, no one in the world is making that argument.

Posted by Freddie | October 22, 2007 4:52 PM

So the argument that if a book portrays a boy-girl romantic affair, it should also portray a gay one, seems a little bit absurd.

I believe I said something similar, but not quite that. I don't insist on equal time of some sort, but if a book portrays a great number and variety of boy-girl romantic relationships, but self-censors an admittedly implied gay one, that's what strikes me as absurd.

Even if one doesn't regard homosexuality as a sin, or a morally disordered state, I think most people would stop short of seeing it as equally 'natural' as heterosexuality.

Unless one is a moral relativist, the feelings of "most people" shouldn't be relevant here. I guess this is what I find so disappointing--by the time an author gets to Book Seven, her thinking ought to be more "what do I think is appropriate" and less "what will consumers let me get away with".

One could view it something like blindness, or lameness, or mental retardation- an inborn condition that is not a moral fault on the part of the people who possess it

So we should treat the "practice" of blindness, lameness, or retardation as immoral, whatever that would mean.

It is not our job to be judging what God gives us, it is our job to make the best of it we can. This is something Christians have no trouble remembering with regards to, say, genetic engineering.

Given an inborn inclination to homosexuality, participating in a heterosexual relation is irresponsible. The question is, should we encourage people to take their given feelings and incorporate them into institutions of love, faithfulness, marriage, and family, or should we encourage them to remain alone and apart from their fellow human beings? As lots of monks will attest, solitude is not without its virtues, but it's hard to see how those virtues are any greater with a gay person than a straight person. Solitude is a legitimate choice, but it should be a choice, not a caste.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 22, 2007 5:47 PM

Even if one doesn't regard homosexuality as a sin, or a morally disordered state, I think most people would stop short of seeing it as equally 'natural' as heterosexuality.

Appeals to what's "natural" in the modern world are deeply weird. I never know what, precisely, people are saying. To begin with, there is no reference for us to check what is or isn't "natural". There's considerable disagreement about what is or isn't natural, and with no hard definitions, the term has limited meaning. Even if we accept a kind of general understanding of what's natural, this kind of criticism is strange. Many, many human behaviors don't pass the natural test.

Some people use the "intentionality" version-- men weren't intended to have sex with men, or more graphically, the anus wasn't intended to be used for sex. But evolution doesn't do intention. The fact that a fish evolves a fin that it uses to swim doesn't mean the fin is intended for that purpose. Without a designer (notice that that doesn't mean the same thing as without god), theres no intention. At the very least, being opposed to gay sex because of the intentionality argument means that someone also must be opposed to anal or oral heterosexual sex. And, also, that begs the question of what, precisely, our various organs are intended for. Is a mouth intended only for eating, breathing, and vocalizing? Is it unnatural to use it to blow bubbles or give a kiss or open a bag of chips?

Posted by Freddie | October 22, 2007 7:00 PM

At the very least, being opposed to gay sex because of the intentionality argument means that someone also must be opposed to anal or oral heterosexual sex.

I don't think Catholics and the Orthodox at least will have much trouble with this, or a large number of traditionalist Protestants for that matter (though I do know of a number of the latter who are clear on homosexuality because there is fairly plain scriptural text, and are agnostic-leaning-against on the question of oral/anal sex by married heterosexuals who do not limit their sexual behavior to those options).

More generally, arguments from natural law and purpose aren't really obviated by a concept of evolution, at least not for theists (which I assume is what you want to claim with "(notice that that doesn't mean the same thing as without god)" ?).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 22, 2007 8:11 PM

Certainly, mentioning it in an interview would be better than an Elizabeth Rohm style "Is this because I'm a lesbian?" as Snape zaps him.

I want to see Fred Thompson on the Ellen show so that she can ask him that.

"Fred, would you make me your running mate?"

"No, I don;t think so?"

"Is it because I'm a lesbian?"

Why... no. (Shakes head) No!"

Of course, only Law & Order buffs would get the joke.

Posted by Glaivester | October 22, 2007 8:16 PM

Re: I believe I said something similar, but not quite that. I don't insist on equal time of some sort, but if a book portrays a great number and variety of boy-girl romantic relationships, but self-censors an admittedly implied gay one, that's what strikes me as absurd.

No, not true. The boy-girl situation is the normal, the standard, the natural. The homosexual pairing is a deviation from the natural. Whether or not you think it's immoral, it certainly a deviation.

An alien race observing a boy-girl pairing would understand much more about human biology, evolution and psychology than by observing a homosexual pairing.

And no, I don't believe that I said that blindness, lameness, retardation or homosexuality were immoral. I believe that the secular liberals are the ones who favor aborting mentally retarded babies, not be. I think that they are children of God as much as you or me, as are homosexual men and women as well. What I said was that retardation, blindness and lameness were clearly afflictions and deficiencies, and perhaps homosexuality might be viewed the same way. Without bringing morality into it at all.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 22, 2007 8:37 PM

Hector Dauphin-Gloire should be reminded that literary figures are not in the habit of writing the ordinary, the normal, the habitual. How many great novels have been written about Average Joe? On the other hand, it is not uncommon for a good novel to feature a character who is as far away as possible from the norm in at least one conspicuous respect.

Posted by pedro | October 22, 2007 8:53 PM

Congrats. You've proved your utter ignorance when it comes to writing fiction.

You make this sound like she issued a press release to try to generate buzz when she was actually asked a question regarding backstory. Her rabid fans press her for ANY details not listed in the books, from characters' favorite colors to brands of shirts and underwear. A proper writer has much of this info already, just in case. And trust me, fans want to know.

This is a case of fans wanting to understand the other things that weren't revealed over seven long, lovely books. Dumbledore's sexuality was never addressed, primarily because it isn't particularly pertinent to the story-- otherwise the titles might be like "Albus and the German Tyrant" instead of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", no?

Your assumptions are 100% wrong.

Posted by Jenna | October 22, 2007 9:06 PM

The typical and the natural are two different things. The whole thing takes place in a School for Wizards and Witches, if that's not "deviant" in the purely statistical sense, I don't know what is. It's not about what alien race would learn observing typical couples, it's about what human readers would learn observing Dumbledore. (I'm not committed to the artistic need to reveal Dumbledore's relationships, but if we're just talking about censoring to avoid offending people that's just lame.)

What I said was that retardation, blindness and lameness were clearly afflictions and deficiencies, and perhaps homosexuality might be viewed the same way.

Okay, but that's completely at odds with the way others here were talking about Down's Syndrome in other threads--it wasn't just about abortion, to even recognize the syndrome as an affliction at all was out of bounds as eugenics.

Without bringing morality into it at all.

If you want to label the existence of blind, lame, and retarded relationships as unnatural or deviant (what would an alien learn observing the blind, lame, and retarded?) then I'll buy that. Until then, you've brought morality into it from the get go. Until you've admitted that if a book portrays a great number and variety of boy-girl romantic relationships, but self-censors an admitted implied gay one, that's absurd you've brought morality into, because the censorship would be on moral, not statistical grounds.

The bottom line here is that with the blind, lame, and retarded we're talking about capability, whereas with homosexuality we're talking about inclination. You can't really call the inclination deficient without making some kind of moral judgment. This attempt at backdoor morality (ahem) doesn't work.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 22, 2007 9:35 PM

To me it seems as though Rowling didn't so much hide the fact that Dumbledore is gay as she only just came up with it when the books were half completed already. Hey, what do I know? I haven't read the books. I plan to read the Harry Potter books someday but I have 40 plus books I want to read first.

I get confused when debating morals with people who aren't religious. I can never figure out how they decide where they draw the line between right and wrong. And so, I don't bother trying to tell them how to live as there is no higher law as I see it to appeal to. I know there are some amazingly good people with no religious claims but I just don't know of any reason that I could use to convince someone to be like them.

However, the only way someone who claims to take the Bible as truth can believe that homosexuality is right is if they have been making handy work with a pair of scissors while reading the Bible. And yes, there are a surprising number of people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.

My final note. You guys do know that less than 2% of the population in America is homosexual right*? So why should every tv show, book, and movie have to have a homosexual couple in it? Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?

*Based on a recent study done by a secular professor (whose name I forget) of Psychology. And by secular I mean someone who is quite opposed to religion. Which I know is not quite the right way to use the word secular.

Posted by David | October 22, 2007 9:53 PM

No, not true. The boy-girl situation is the normal, the standard, the natural. The homosexual pairing is a deviation from the natural. Whether or not you think it's immoral, it certainly a deviation.

Again, how do you segue from the standard to the natural? Where do you find this definition of what's natural? What writing written in the sky? I would hasten to point out that there is homosexual behavior in many species other than humans. Is that, too, unnatural? By who's definition?

Posted by Freddie | October 22, 2007 11:10 PM

David, my knowledge of Harry Potter is pretty shallow and I only made it to the first couple books, which is probably why I remember the "Mirror of Erised" scene between Dumbledore and Harry alluding to the mystery of Dumbledore's fondest desire. When Rowling says she was always thinking of him as gay, we can take her word for it--she was definitely thinking of that sort of puzzle from the very beginning.

I get confused when debating morals with people who aren't religious. I can never figure out how they decide where they draw the line between right and wrong.

This is a good question. I decide my morals the same way I think everyone else who thinks about morality seriously does, religious or otherwise. It's a continuous, recursive process of analysis of intuition and intuitions of analysis. Saying "God said it's good" doesn't short circuit that, because it requires an argument about why it is good to do what God says, and that argument itself makes premises that need arguments of their own. In the end you'll have to satisfy yourself with "it's good because I like it and I currently see no reason it's bad", and hopefully you'll have gone through enough levels of recursion that goodness and morality are not merely euphemisms for convenience or prejudice.

But ultimately it's a process that requires both insight and honesty--it's really easy to go throw the motions of this and just stop when you get an answer you like. There's no foolproof way to find the truth, the best you can do is appeal to common intuitions--while being open to the fact that space of potential intuitions is unbounded in a way reminiscent of Chaitin's Constant.

But that's really only a problem if you expect your morality to describe everything that is possibly worthwhile. For debating the issues that come up in ordinary public policy, the relevant intuitions are fairly simple and universal, but vague and contradictory--hence disagreement.

Of course, how moral arguments are settled is quite different from how moral actions are actually performed. I think people largely emulate the moral norms and practices of those around them, regardless of logical argument.

However, the only way someone who claims to take the Bible as truth can believe that homosexuality is right is if they have been making handy work with a pair of scissors while reading the Bible.

I don't think that's really true--the only mentions of homosexuality seem to be vague shorthand for perversion in general. Homosexuality in Paul's day was more of a recreational fling between men then a stable relationship capable of raising families as it is today.

And yes, there are a surprising number of people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.

But in this case, regardless of your view of homosexuality, I can't see how someone who wants people to believe in the Bible would see this as bad. There is a growing proportion of people for whom a prohibition on homosexuality is a complete deal breaker--not because they are gay, but because they know gays and cannot believe that a just God would condemn their love. Like it or not, when you ask people to believe in God, they will judge for themselves whether the God you insist on makes sense as something worth believing in.

So why should every tv show, book, and movie have to have a homosexual couple in it?

We aren't talking about inserting new gay characters, we're talking about admitting to one that is already there.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 22, 2007 11:16 PM

> I get confused when debating morals with people
> who aren't religious.

I can't tell if this is a serious statement.

Do religious people really feel this way?

Posted by MarkT | October 23, 2007 1:10 AM

Mr Douthat-

It's always aggravating to read a piece of poorly researched, half-assed, snob-blind journalism, even when that piece is a matter of opinion. It's more disheartening when the piece is written by someone highly esteemed and educated.

The revelation that "Dumbledore is gay" and that Neville Longbottom eventually marries and becomes "cool" in the eyes of his students, is backstory, post-story: what writers develop and discover to tell the story they bind in books. A story is limited, yes: a beginning, middle, and end for a central character is usually all there's room for in books. But stories feature characters, who all have their own beginnings, middles, and ends---and hardly enough page space to share them, however complex and honest they may be.

How is revealing elements of another character's story in the context of a Q&A so easily condemned by you as the author's sad, pathetic attempt on bestowing adult meaning to her already printed pages?

The bits of information Rowling shared at Carnegie Hall are not smoke-screens,but bits of insight into the complex world she created with her books, and the characters that inhabit it. The Harry Potter series uses the language of fantasy to tell a story many identify with on the basis of its emotional truth and triumph. And that story contains others, with their own. Sharing truth seems to be the point of all literature, even when there are no dragons or witches present.

What a shame you've missed that point as well.

Posted by Larissa | October 23, 2007 2:56 AM

Is Dumbledore gay?

Would J.K. Rowling be a billionaire author today if the children's book series on which she built her fortune featured a major character who was gay?

Rowling has had a decade and thousands of pages in which to show us Dumbledore's gayness. If she "always thought of Dumbledore as gay," then surely she also knew that to make this explicit would be to kill--or at least seriously to maim--the goose that lay the golden egg.

Integrity, anyone?

Posted by grogan | October 23, 2007 5:12 AM

The situation of Dumbledore's sexuality is one that is never breached in the books, as it is for the most part, simply not relevant. One must remember that these books are childrens books, and most children don't come to look at issues of sexuality until they are around 10 -12, let alone homosexuality. The books do deal with many different diversity issues, but sexuality is not one that is necessarily relevant in books that will be read by or to children of very young ages. Sexuality issues would have brought more depth to the diversity issues touched on, but isn't necessarily one that would have made the story better or more appealing.
Unfortunately, in todays right-wing society, children are shielded from issues such as sexuality, and even taught ignorance in such matters. If a popular series such as the Harry Potter one had dealt with these matters, it may have helped our cause in broading some children's knowledge of these matters, or would have created the reverse intention in sparking more attention to keeping these issues away from todays children. Already these books have spark malicious comments from right-wing Christian groups, claiming they promote witchcraft and other "evil" values. This just goes to show that in such a close-minded society a childrens story cannot, and will not in the foreseeable future, breach issues that are still as ignored as sexuality, because these ideas and issues are persecuted by some groups still attempting to force their values upon others, and not understanding that openmindedness is the only way society can continue to develop.

Posted by Silaqui | October 23, 2007 5:49 AM

Appropriately for a series that started with the perspective of an 11-year-old, Harry Potter never really gets into the s*x lives of its supporting characters. This seems like harmless backstory, like revealing that Lucius and Narcissa have a smoking bedroom life.

Must . . . go . . . write . . . young Lucius/Narcissa/Bellatrix three-way slash!

Posted by J Mann | October 23, 2007 9:07 AM

I get confused when debating morals with people who aren't religious.
How kind of you to condescend to speak amongst us, almost as if we were equal to you.

I'll try to explain to you where morals come from, and maybe if you try really hard, you won't get confused. They come from a general sense that treating others with certain respect (not harming their livelihood by stealing from them or injuring them, for example) is the right thing to do. On a grand scale, society works better if we operate under laws of common respect. On a small scale, as social animals we crave the company of others, and it is easiest to gain and keep that company if we play nice.

Individuals and societies misstep at times. Nations trade slaves. Individuals murder others. But Christian nations and individuals misstep at times, too. A Christian nation engages in a holy war. A Christian pastor beats his gay son until his arms are broken. People who are not Christians do not misstep because we don't read the Bible, any more than Christians misstep because they do read the Bible.

And yes, there are a surprising number of people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.

All Christians pick and choose what lessons in the Bible to live by, which in the case of your argument means the same thing as "believe." Do you take an eye for an eye - if someone killed your spouse, would you kill his spouse? Conversely, do you actually turn the other cheek? Do you refuse to eat shellfish, as it is an abomination? Did you abandon your parents to follow Jesus?

As to the moral issue of how society should treat homosexuals - as society has matured, so have our morals matured. The Bible never condemns slavery, but society came to the conclusion that slavery is immoral. Some even came to that conclusion because slavery didn't seem in line with Christian values, without needing the Bible to tell them expressly what to do. Many came to this conclusion while still thinking that blacks were inferior to whites.

Likewise, most gays don't really care if you think they are right or wrong - your opinion is your own business. But if you specifically believe that they should have fewer rights or are inferior people, then you are directly going against the Golden Rule, which most Christians do actually choose to live by.

Posted by Shannon | October 23, 2007 10:21 AM

Amazing how many of you sound like failed writer's who "think" they "know" what a writer should or should not comment on! Especially Mr Douthat *cough*douchebag*cough* who should read something before he comments on it.

Posted by Sonia | October 23, 2007 11:16 AM

Shannon,

A few points to make:

#1 - "Love the sinner, hate the sin." This does not mean that we are to stand idly by while someone sins, but rather show them the LOVE of God by encouraging them to mend their ways.

#2 - It's "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11), not "go do whatever you want."

The Bible never condemns slavery, but society came to the conclusion that slavery is immoral.

There are vastly different definitions of "slavery." There's the "slavery" of the Egyptian times and the Babylonian captivity, which is one definition. There's also the "slavery" of Jewish tradition, which was more a rather inventive way of punishing criminals, by making them work off their societal debt in servitude to some individual for a period of time, after which point they were once again freed. I presume you don't have an issue with our paying criminals peanuts to work making license plates or cleaning roadsides today?

A Christian nation engages in a holy war.

I for one don't want to start a holy war, but when a pagan moon-god faith threatens me, kills thousands of people worldwide, cuts womens' heads off for not wearing scarves, refuses to allow Christians or any other religion to practice openly under pain of death, kills people for the "crime" of converting to other faiths, and declares that anyone who "disrespects" their stinky fake pedophile "prophet" ought to be killed, I think a certain amount of self-defense is justified.

Posted by Advocate | October 23, 2007 12:36 PM

who should read something before he comments on it.

Er, Ross has read the Potter books -- and thought well of them, iirc. I think that "oh for pete's sake, all this after-the-fact adding depth is a bit lame" is a natural first response to the revelation, though I'm having more charitable thoughts after a bit. I'm not into the whole "more backstory!" and think that "knowing" what Lucius and Narcissa's love life is like is also a pointless thing, unrelated to the actual story we were told, but I understand that even better authors than Rowling can get into this (cough, Tolkien, cough), and it's not a fault, exactly. Just not my cup of tea.

Upon reflection, Dumbledore as quietly gay makes fictional sense, though if brought onstage it would have been distracting rather than illuminating, I suspect. Harry Potter suffered enough from being "about" things it wasn't about and being a political football, rather than just being a good story about some wizards and brooms and stuff.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 23, 2007 1:03 PM

Ross, take a look at this link:

http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=3&sec2=1

I think it sheds some light on what's going on - HP fans are hungry for more information (Did Bellatrix ever love her husband, what happened to Luna, etc.), and giving it to them seems kind of harmless.

A more interesting question is why Rowling made the gay character and the zooiphile brothers.

Posted by J Mann | October 23, 2007 2:11 PM

Advocate,

#1 - "Love the sinner, hate the sin." This does not mean that we are to stand idly by while someone sins, but rather show them the LOVE of God by encouraging them to mend their ways.

In what ways do you propose to show gays the love of God? Is it by depriving them of marriage or civil union, so that they can see how much better it is to be straight? Because that's causing gays to give up their gayness like crazy, let me tell you.

In what ways do you propose to encourage them to mend their ways? Is it by alienating them and calling them unnatural on the Internet? It's not working. Talking down to people does not give them the sense that you are trying to show them God's love. It shows that you believe they are inferior to you.

And yes, I am talking down to you right now. Yes, I do think you are inferior to me, intellectually and morally. But unlike you, I'm not pretending that really, it's all because I want you to know that God loves you.

#2 - It's "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11), not "go do whatever you want."

I don't live by Biblical law; I think I made that clear in the first post. I'm free to go forth and sin all I want to. Strangely, it hasn't caused me to break any federal or state laws yet.

As for the rest of your post, that whole slavery part was poorly defended and strange. I'm not sure what you mean by the "vastly different definitions", but you seem kind of defensive that I dared to say the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. I didn't say that the Bible was wrong or immoral. My points were simply that morals can come from places other than the Bible, and that all Christians do, in some way or another, choose which parts of the Bible to believe and live by.

You also seemed to take my meaning of a holy war as some kind of contemporary comment on the war in Iraq, although again, strange - I'm not sure where the pagan moon gods are coming from and why they are so bent on injuring you and their women. At any rate, I mean an actual holy war, fought specifically and openly because of religion. I mean the 16th century wars in France between Catholics and Protestants. I mean Charlemagne fighting numerous campaigns to convert the nations he was conquering to Christianity - campaigns in which he would behead thousands of people caught still worshipping their pagan gods after the conquered land had officially been converted to Christianity.

And while I'm confident that you are God-loving homosexuals all over the place by demeaning them and talking down to them and driving them right out of their gay minds, I also imagine you're not killing them when they refuse to accept your unasked-for God-love. No westerner this side of the 19th Century would do that, unless they were a crazy pagan moon god worshipper.

Posted by Shannon | October 23, 2007 3:31 PM

Strangely, it hasn't caused me to break any federal or state laws yet.

Well, gee, not breaking any federal or state laws sure sounds like the primary goal of a life worth living. I hope you're not claiming _that's_ where you get morality in the absence of God. I mean, better than astrology, but not much.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 23, 2007 3:55 PM

J Mann, re the link:

Ok, blast. I'm susceptible to this stuff, too, and glad to hear Luna got married to another naturalist. Heaven help us all.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 23, 2007 3:57 PM

haha, I got sucked into the Rowling Chat too; my eyes kept rolling, but I kept reading...

Posted by hugo | October 23, 2007 4:47 PM

And yes, there are a surprising number of people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.

And they flagrantly eat pork, wear clothes made from blends of two fabrics, and neglect their duties to their deceased brothers' wives.

Posted by Mike | October 23, 2007 6:14 PM

Yeah, the people I'm responding to probably won't see this, but I had to say something anyway.

Hector:
Just as a semantic issue, can we really call someone 'gay' if they had a single non-consummated infatuation in their teenage years? Can one really be a 'non-practicing' homosexual, or does that terminology not even make sense?
Does it make sense for a person to be considered a non-practicing heterosexual? Or are all virgins asexual? Just because some doesn't act on an inclination does not mean that the inclination isn't there - and who said Dumbledore didn't act on it anyway?

David:
However, the only way someone who claims to take the Bible as truth can believe that homosexuality is right is if they have been making handy work with a pair of scissors while reading the Bible. And yes, there are a surprising number of people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.
Did you know that the Bible was written and compiled by several different people? They all sat down together and argued about what people had come up with and picked and chose what went into the Bible in the first place. Even if God exists, people are still fallible. Why do you assume the people back then who were choosing the contents of the Bible were any wiser than people today choosing which parts are still relevant?

Posted by bacon | October 24, 2007 12:02 AM

And they flagrantly eat pork, wear clothes made from blends of two fabrics, and neglect their duties to their deceased brothers' wives.

They also eat lobster, pierce their ears, tattoo their bodies, work on the Sabbath, and judge others instead of reserving that judgement for God alone.

Although God knows, everyone else sure does wish they'd be quiet and let God take over the judgement for a minute or two.

Posted by Shannon | October 24, 2007 12:52 PM

Ok, it's all very amusing, but a lot of the "pork, blended fabrics hah hah" crowd is mostly showing they don't have any actual scholarly knowledge of Christian doctrine, the relationship between it and Jewish prohibitions, and the Law, or the derivations of various parts of morals and how they relate to this (rather complex) subject. There's a big literature on this, you might want to dip into it if you don't want to sound like ignorant village atheists to anyone who actually knows anything about this.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 24, 2007 1:47 PM

I think Hector and Bacon's responses hit on some of the problem I had with Rowlings refference to Dumbledore as a homosexual. Having an intense and passionate desire for a specific male and not really an attraction to any other individual is something somewhat different. Individuals have the power to fall in love with individuals of any gender through intense connection and interest. Dumbledore might have fallen in love with Grindlewald equally if he were a female, because what he fell in love with was his ideas and his power not his physical body. I feel the distinction is important and vital in understanding human sexuality on the whole.

Posted by symphonyofdissent | October 24, 2007 2:39 PM

bacon,

i would say that being heterosexual is the default assumption. as men 'naturally' pair off with women and vice versa. thus i would assume that a virgin is heterosexual by inclination unless i had reason to believe otherwise. i suspect there are many of us heterosexuals who have a certain sublimated form of same sex attraction but that is neither intense nor exclusive enough for us ever to want to act upon it.

it isn't necessary to cite the old testament to make a case against homosexuality. yes the old testament has a lot of ridiculous prohibitions in it, and i'm glad we don't take those very seriously anymore. however the prohibitions against homosexuality are rife through the New Testament as well. it can't get much clearer than St. Jude saying, 'do not pursue strange flesh'. its not just that sodomy is just one thing that the NT condemns among many, it is condemned with particular force and repeatedly. sodomy was considered such a great evil that the Church would often accuse any and all of its political/ecclesiastical opponents of sodomy as kind of an ultimate condemnation (usually without much foundation)- the Marcionites, the Bogomils, the Cathars, the Knights Templar, and the Muslims among others.) although in the case of medieval islam the accusation may not have been baseless.

Now maybe there are reasons why the New Testament and the Church were wrong about homosexuality. quite possibly they are- i think they were wrong about the divine right of kings, after all, and about birth control and about some other things. But i would want to see some reason why the New Testament, church tradition, and natural law arguments are wrong before i accept that conclusion.

I don't think that the inclination is sinful, and I think that if its indeed inborn and unchangeable, then God will not expect something of us that we can't be expected to follow. but i think that i want to hear some better arguments before i conclude that homosexuality is something to be celebrated as 'just as good' as heterosexuality.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 24, 2007 3:41 PM

Marquis, for some reason you want to turn this into an "I know the Bible better" competition. You are really dodging my point, which is that all Christians pick and choose what they want to believe, and you know it. For all the excuses you give, you ignore some parts of the Bible, as does every Christian.

I don't care if you ignore them or not. I do care if you decide to harp on one specific sin as if it is the most terrible of terrible sins, while calling everyone who thinks it's not a big deal a hypocrite who thinks they can just pick and choose their beliefs. I do care if you want the rights of gays taken away because they are committing that most horrendous of sins.

There are many, many sins that are fully legal in this country. People are not punished or even ostracized for committing them. Christians are not flinging themselves against the doors of the White House to ensure that people who commit these sins will never have equal rights.

And many of these legal sins are quite harmful to individuals, and to society. Still, we don't find them punishable by man. Eight of the ten commandments are legal. All of the seven deadly sins are both legal and commonly practiced, although surely harmful, clearly destructive to self and society.

So why is homosexuality so terrible? Why must people actively lobby to prevent gays from having rights, and to prevent civil union? Why is this sin so much worse than all the many other sins that Christians may not commit, but do willingly tolerate in society?

Posted by Shannon | October 24, 2007 4:45 PM

symphonyofdissent:
Who said that Dumbledore never felt an attraction for anyone else? For all we know he slept with a different person (male or female, or maybe he prefered both at once) every night for twenty years. It's not relevant to Harry's story, so it obviously wouldn't be in the books, and all that J.K. Rowling ever said on the subject (to my knowledge) is that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Maybe he was never even sexually attracted to Grindelwald in the first place. What I don't understand is how you think the author (remember, she's the person who invented Dumbledore) could be wrong about this.

Hector:
I am very well aware that heterosexual is the default assumption. My point is that just because we aren't aware of Dumbledore ever having sex with men doesn't mean that he's hetero. And as I pointed out above, he might have been a practicing homosexual but it wasn't relevant to the story so it wasn't included.

but i think that i want to hear some better arguments before i conclude that homosexuality is something to be celebrated as 'just as good' as heterosexuality.
Shouldn't love be celebrated regardless of the relationship? Love between family, friends, and parters? If two people of the same sex can love each other as family or friends and have that love celebrated, why is it "not as good" if they're partners?
I don't really know what kind of arguments you're looking for, but that's my initial offering. Maybe if you could be a little more specific about why you think a heterosexual partnership is better than a homosexual partnership, I could come up with better arguments.

Posted by bacon | October 24, 2007 5:37 PM

Shannon,

Er, I don't think homosexuality is the worst of all sins, by any means, and I think laws against gay sex are generally a bad idea. The bizarre thing is that resistance to _gay marriage_ and a defense of Christian sexual morality _within the church itself_ has become some sign of a radical animosity to gay sex above all other sins. I have gay friends, and am mildly favorable to most of what civil unions grant (though I think that it's silly to limit this kind of thing to people ostensibly linked by a sexual relationship -- friends should be able to get at least some of these things, and I have no liking for the state "rewarding" _sexual_ relationships other than heterosexual marriage). Homosexuality is interesting, but it's not the most important or fascinating of _sins_.

My only point was that the particular points being made about Christians picking and choosing seemed to exhibit a rather silly ignorance of Paul, the whole question of the Law, and the tension between legalistic and other frameworks for morality in Christianity.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | October 24, 2007 7:03 PM

Marquis,

It would seem that you agree with some of my own beliefs. I personally have no problem with a church encouraging Christian sexual morality within the church. I just don't care for people leaving the church and trying to encourage, or even legislate, sexual morality to the nation or the world at large. You are entitled to your beliefs and lifestyle, and I am entitled to mine, and you and I appear to agree on that. Good.

We might disagree on marriage vs. civil union. I think civil union is just fine, but there's no reason why gays shouldn't get full marriage rights either. Marriage is not a specifically Christian right or ceremony, and as such I don't think Christianity should dictate who can and can't have a wedding.

I also agree with you that civil union benefits should extend beyond sexual partnerships. Especially since so many want to be married/partnered specifically for health care. I'm all for that - health care is security, and it's nice if more people can get it.

I exaggerated a bit to make my point - I'm sure Christians don't generally think homosexuality is worse than, say, murder. But it does seem odd to me that so many Christians do get so angry about this one sin, and put a really heavy focus on it. I personally suspect that really, they're just afraid of people that are different from them (understandable, because we all are in some way), and instead of just trying not to be bothered by it, they turn in on their fear and it comes back out as bigotry. And they feel ok with this bigotry, because they think the Bible backs it up. I'm not the Christian here, but I don't think the Bible backs bigotry up. And I do hear a lot of "love the sinner, hate the sin," but I see very little love in the actions and words of everyone who has ever said that to me.

But maybe I've just met a lot of jerks, and I didn't mean to cast that kind of fear specifically on you, and thanks for stepping up and making your stand on the subject clear.

Posted by Shannon | October 24, 2007 7:51 PM

OK, I'm double posting unless someone else flies in here real fast, but having talked about the religious side, I have some questions and comments for those who seem to have a more scientific point of view. Specifically, Hector's repeated focus on what is "natural."

This is the problem I have with the word "natural." My best guess is that you mean "of nature," but that doesn't fit with the tone of your question. You seem to be wondering if homosexuality is a bad thing, and concluding that if it's not natural then it may be a bad thing. Heart disease is "natural," in that it is of the body, biological. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Likewise, do you think female/male with the intention of childbirth is the only natural sex? Because if so, it doesn't make much sense that sex is so enjoyable.

So is gay sex natural? Well, it's biological. All sex is. Some people want to say it's not natural because animals don't do it, but actually, they do. Besides, I don't think we should look to animal kingdom for a standard of what's good and natural. Animals also eat their young, and push their sick and elderly to the outside of the herd so the predators can get them. We strive not to live like animals, and that's a good thing.

Regarding a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, I don't particularly care for the genetics argument, because homosexuality starts to get talked about like a birth defect. And the vast majority of gays do not want their sexual preference to be cured or extracted. If you think of it instead as a recessive gene, then that's less hostile, but still. Does it matter if it's genetic? What if you only want to date girls with red hair? Would it bother you? Because it doesn't make much sense. It doesn't fit in with the propagation of the species, because you're cutting a lot of girls out of the scene. Would you feel better about only liking redheads if you knew that you couldn't help yourself, because it was genetic? Or would you not worry about it and just find a cute redhead to go cuddle with?

Because the vast majority of gays just know that they prefer the same gender, and go find someone of the same gender to cuddle with. And mostly, they don't wonder why they feel that way or if it makes sense. Attraction in general doesn't make much sense, and I think most humans prefer not to apply logic to it.

As for sodomy, it is not the hallmark of gayness. A straight guy who realizes he's interested in sodomy doesn't think "oh no, I must be gay! And I like women so much! How can this be?" Likewise, not all gay men practice or even enjoy sodomy. Not all straight people like to have sex only when they're trying to reproduce, and not all straight people want to reproduce at all. Who you want to have sex with is what defines your sexual identity, not the way in which you'd like to have sex with that person.

I think what you may be wondering is, is homosexuality taboo? And in some circles it is (and in some circles, it's taboo to even acknowledge that sex exists). But we live in a society that increasingly agrees that if two consenting adults want to do something that's taboo together, that's just fine. You don't have to do it, you don't have to confirm that it's normal or natural or not taboo, but it's nice if you don't go out of your way to restrict people who want to do it.

Posted by Shannon | October 24, 2007 9:21 PM

Re: It can't get much clearer than St. Jude saying, 'do not pursue strange flesh'.

Huh? How is that "clearly" a prohibition against homosexuality? And indeed, if you read the actual Greek, what the verse criticizes (in an aside comment, not a direct commandment) is lusting after "heteras sarkas"-- and that "heteras" is the same word as in "heterosexual". It simply means "different". Possibly a reference to bestiality?

Re: its not just that sodomy is just one thing that the NT condemns among many, it is condemned with particular force and repeatedly

Again, huh? There are only two passages in the whole NT that even mention anything like homosexuality. The verse from Jude obviously does not. Of the other two, one uses a very obscure word (arsenkoites) which in other Greek Christian literature is actually used in a blatantly and undeniably heterosexual context as well (Men in Byzantium were commiting arsenokitia with their wives-- doesn't get any more hetero than that!); and the other verse, in Romans, is, again, a side comment where homosexual lust (not love, but lust) is described as a consequence of idolatry, at least among the apostate Jews who had taken up Greek ways in all things. That's hardly "repeatedly and forcefully". As for the Church's habit of throwing "sodomy" into the mix of crminal charges, two things can be said: first, the word was NOT a synonym for homosexuality; it simply meant any non-procreative sexual practice and married couples sinned by sodomy if they had anal or oral sex too. Secondly, the medieval prosecutors were notorious for throwing all sorts of charges at someone they wanted to convict in hopes that one of them would stick. Not just sodomy, but bestiality, incest, witchcraft and Satanism were routinely tossed in the judicial pot, perhaps on the theory that if someone was a bad sort, guilty of one great crime, he or she must be guilty of every sort of sin.

OK, now can we get back to the Harry Potter discussion?

Posted by JonF | October 24, 2007 10:14 PM

Hi JonF,

Some of what you say makes a lot of sense to me. I am still agnostic on the issue and would like to be convinced. (In addition, of course, whatever I think about homosexuality, I care much more about economic issues, social justice, foreign policy and the environment, and I don't vote on the basis of gay marriage or whatever.)

Couldn't an argument be made, however, that in context the verse from Jude is clearly referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, and that Church tradition, at least, has associated those cities with the specific act of sodomy. Bestiality is such a rare, inconceivable and bizarre perversion that it seems unlikely it was ever practiced anywhere on a large scale, as in two entire cities.

No doubt probably 99% of the people accused by the medieval chruch of sodomy, were innocent; it was a term of abuse, much like 'fascist', 'capitalist' or 'communist' became in more recent ages; however, it does tell us that the medieval church regarded it as a particularly serious sin.

Isn't there also a verse that says something like 'neither sodomites nor catamites nor adulterers nor etc. etc. shall inherit the kingdom of Heaven."

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 27, 2007 11:43 AM

That's interesting what you quoted, Hector. I'd never heard the word catamite before, so I looked it up, and the original verse:

"Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God’s kingdom" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

There's some pretty harsh judgment in this. Catamites are kids who are in relationships with peophiles. In modern society, we don't call them sinners unfit to enjoy the allotment blah blah blah, we call them "victims."

One might argue that Paul is saying these people won't be condemned to hell if they repent and ask forgiveness, because then they won't be thieves, adulterers, sodomites, and catamites anymore. But who in our modern society thinks the victim of a pedophile needs to ask forgiveness for sin?

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but to me, Paul's unfair condemnation of victims discounts the rest of the verse, too.

Posted by Shannon | October 27, 2007 3:37 PM

To anyone who is religious, or wants some good arguing points when trying to save religious people fromt their own idiocy, read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". He is a genius and I believe everyone should read his book.

Posted by SIlaqui | October 27, 2007 5:11 PM

Shannon,

No doubt the condemnation applies only to willing catamites who are of an age to consent, etc. kids who are forced into such a situation would obviously not be culpable. some elements of the traditionally respected those women who died rather than submit to violation, but such a course of action was not obligatory, and St. Augustine said that there was no sin involved in being the victim of sexual violation- presumably that would apply to boys as much as to women.

this is presuming that St. Paul was right in his condemnation, or that he was referring to the same people he think he was, but even if you agree with those points, one doesn't have to believe that the victims of pederasts are the subject of condemnation, only the willing participants. rather than discounting the verse, perhaps we should see how it can be interpreted in different ways. btw, 'catamite' as far as I know can refer to willing adults as much as to kids.

btw, i'm not necessarily averse to the idea that even though God spoke to St. Paul, he (St. Paul) might still be wrong about a few things. I think God spoke to Joan of Arc as well, but apparently He didn't empower her to know that one of her closes associates, Gilles de Rais, was a pederast and serial killer. That is a troubling fact but it doesn't necessarily negate the fact that she saw God, nor does the fact that St. Paul saw God mean that he was right about everything else. So I'm open to being convinced, but as yet I haven't been convinced.

Richard Dawkins, btw, stopped being a serious researcher and contributing to the corpus of knowledge long before he became a professional atheism. One might almost imagine that his professional atheism has withered his once considerable talents.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 27, 2007 5:25 PM

Hector,

btw, 'catamite' as far as I know can refer to willing adults as much as to kids.

The meaning of the word catamite doesn't have to be something you think you understand - you're online right now. Look it up, in one of the numerous free and legitimate online dictionaries.

It is the younger member in the relationship - the older member is the pederast. And a pederast is not someone who has relationships with very young adults. A pederast has relationships with children. And your defense of Paul is creepy - only those children that consent were intended?

Posted by Shannon | October 30, 2007 3:33 PM

My feeling has always been to trust the art and not the artist. Desperately searched for pseudo-hints aside, Dumbledore's sexuality just never arises and is therefore irrelevant. It is amazing how this conversations has devolved though.

Try and be good to each other people. Oh and Happy Halloween.

Posted by Ken | October 31, 2007 7:40 AM

After trying to dig through some of the comments here, I finally gave up after I'd had enough gay (and straight, and Christian and agnostic) bashing.

I have one simple question. Was anybody's sexuality discussed in any of the books (I only read the first three)? Maybe Harry goes on from where I left off to admire Hermione's post-pubescent swelling hips and breasts. If not, isn't that, plus the fact that Rawling was asked (as opposed to offering) about Dumbledore enough to stop people from railing on her?

Seems simple enough to me. Then again, I'm not a struggling writer trying to find solace in the fact that I can stir emotions in someone else's blog.

Posted by Abu Sofia | November 1, 2007 1:57 PM

One thing I found interesting from reading through the first half of these comments, is the concept from some of the people who hold the view that "being gay is unnatural," specifically Tim. One idea that occurs to me is the distinction of what being "gay" actually means-- it is not, as some appear to believe, a specific action, in the same way as one can be straight, and a virgin. It is something that one is born with, that means that you are attracted to others of the same sex, instead of those of the opposite sex. This may not be _usual_, in the same way as left-handedness is not usual. And I can even understand those that might contend that it is less natural than than straightness, simply because it cannot naturally lead to reproduction. However, it is something that occurs naturally, and it has been proven to do so in nature. Anyone who tries to relate homosexuality to "internal confusion" or immorality is very, very wrong. You see people who are raised in a very anti-gay environment, or people raised with no concept of homosexuality, and if _they_ happen to be gay, then that's where some psychological confusion can come from-- they begin to realize something, that they believe is wrong, or that they don't understand. People who talk about a "gay agenda" make me laugh. The "gay agenda," if there is one, is not to turn straight people gay (which is impossible), or to force a "lifestyle" into our culture. As far as I can tell, the only thing they want is to change the culture to where people don't have a deep revulsion towards homosexuality, to avoid people who have to face the internal conflict inherent in hating a part of yourself that you have no control over. Things like that is how we get people like Larry Craig.

Posted by Maxwell | November 1, 2007 7:10 PM

You guys ... come on now.

READ THE DARN BOOKS BEFORE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM!

Ive been a devoted, even rabid fan from book 1. I would love nothing more than a massive Harry Potter anthology detailing the full lives of each and every character, full descriptions of each room in Hogwarts, detailed maps, diagrams, architectural drawings, EVERYTHING.

Rowling was answering questions from rabid fans like myself, and there are millions of us. Its just a bit of backstory, I dont see the big fuss. Is debating morality or the morals of homosexuality relevant? No. Only fans should even care about Dumbledore at all.

Its funny to see that this is what it takes to get older stodgy adults to finally show any interest in the greatest series of novels ever written in all of human history.

The fan fiction Ive read so far has been really bad, I need Rowling to further shape the world she has created and the world which I lose myself in whenever I open one of her books. [Ive read each book besides the 7th over 20 times].

HARRY POTTER FOREVER!

Posted by potter4ever | November 1, 2007 8:27 PM

The claims by some that it was an error on Rowling's part to not deal directly with Dumbledore's sexuality, or that she's somehow retrospectively decided to launch the salacious tidbit into the public arena purely for the sake of controversy are farcical.

Imagine the howls of protest from the Christian Right, "family orientated" teachers and librarians and parents at the thought of the character Harry most looks up to and who guides him, even from the grave, to his goal of defeating Voldemort. In Australia presenters on children's programs have been fired due to homosexuality and books about having "Two mummies" generated cries of fury from 'protectors of the family'. To look at Dumbledore's sexuality only in the context of the books plot misrepresents the context in which the characters were created and doesn't give Rowling enough credit for being one of the few authors to actually incorporate a gay character into her work at all. The suggestion that Dumbledore's sexuality is purely for the sake of 'adult complexity' is perhaps the precise reason she created a gay character. That you believe children are incapable of considering the implications of being gay to the story Ross ironically leads to the same conclusion that those who howled at the 'Two mummies' did: children should be shielded from sexuality, even where it's likely to lead to a better understanding of their own identity and that of others.

Posted by Toby | November 1, 2007 9:41 PM

Same old story: populist and financially successful writer with limited talents makes a truckload of money pandering to the masses tries to backfill disposable literature with literary intent.

Rowling seems like a very decent individual, but a serious writer?...maybe in the same way that Fred Thompson is a serious Presidential candidate; i.e. he could be "successfully" voted into office and still not be a serious presidential candidate. (a' la Raegan.)

At least Stephen King -- who clearly knows he is a less than adequate writer -- doesn't try to vindicate his profits of pander with absurd declarations of literary intent.

Hacks are hacks, and they do not cease to be hacks simply because they suddenly discover that, as excellent as having millions of dollars is, (yes. I am envious of that) accruing millions is no substitute for genuine acheivement.

Posted by Gary Ricin | November 5, 2007 7:53 AM