Homosexuality isn't a state of being capable of being prejudiced against (like race); it's a set of behaviors. This is true regardless of whether there is a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction (think alcoholism--that's the product of a genetic disposition as well, but we have no problem recognizing it as a behavior rather than an immutable state of being).

The relevance of all this to the discussion is that Rowling's announcement doesn't affect who Dumbledore "is" as a character as much as it forces reinterpretation of his actions and motives. Regardless of how anyone feels about Dumbledore preferring men sexually, everyone should be a little bit sad that Rowling asks us to reinterpret the subtle and mature "ethics of power" theme to the much less worthwhile "emotions get in the way of stuff" theme.

I personally like that Dumblydore is gay, leave more rampant totty for us real men :-P

quote:

---

But as far as we know, Dumbledore had not a single fully realized romance in 115 years of life. That's pathetic, and a little creepy. It's also a throwback to an era of pop culture when the only gay characters were those who committed suicide or were murdered. As Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1981) points out, in film after film of the mid-century—Rebel Without a Cause; Rebecca; Suddenly, Last Summer—the gay characters must pay for their existence with death. Like a lisping weakling, Dumbledore is a painfully selfless, celibate, dead gay man, so forgive me if I don't see Rowling's revelation as great progress.

---

quote:

---

Oh and someone said Grindly was blond, no he wasn't, he had dark hair like Victor Krum and the fool I can't remember who ran Durmstrang. (Just kidding, you are certainly entitled to your view of him. I just saw all three of those as from the middle to east European race where blondies are rare.)

---

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/grindelwald.html

quote:

---

APPEARANCE
Hair: Blonde, curly shoulder-length hair (DH13).
Characteristics: A wild, gleeful look about him (DH13).

---

I win! Ha ha!

quote:

---

This is true regardless of whether there is a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction

---

And prejudice is not dependant on whether what is being "pre-judged" is a behavior or a genetic trait.

Let's take a look at what it does indeed mean:

Prejudice:
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

Someone may decide they have the right to be prejudiced toward homosexuals because they think homosexual attraction is in and of itself evil, but that is nontheless a form of prejudice since is is an adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand without regard to what the person has actually done.

Edit:

quote:

---

everyone should be a little bit sad that Rowling asks us to reinterpret the subtle and mature "ethics of power" theme to the much less worthwhile "emotions get in the way of stuff" theme.

---

And since this is a topic I have strong feelings about I'll restrain myself from further comments.

Second, Rowling stated that Dumbledore "fell in love with" Grindly (love it - it's like Voldy) and that was part of what snared him. Injecting "blinded by love" into Dumbledore's struggle with lust for power weakens the struggle, period. My inferences about Dumbledore's motivations (which are what count - there's no point in talking about someone's "attitude" vs. a fictional character's "motivations") change if I take Dumbledore's newly-revealed sexual orientation into account when I read Deathly Hallows. Things get more tragic, but Dumbledore doesn't have to journey nearly as far.

JeanneT,

quote:

---

one's genetic makeup is indeed a "state of being" and is totally non-dependant on one's behavior... homosexuality was hardly a "set of behaviors..."

---

I don't think "behavior" is simply concrete examples of action. In economics class, when we are talking about the effect of the interest rate on the market we can make fairly accurate predictions of what will happen because we know the market's behavior, even though it hasn't--by your definition--behaved yet. I define behavior as how something(one) is predisposed to act, how it is going to act, and I include homosexual attraction as a behavior whether it is voluntary or not. Whether or not Dumbledore produced any outward signs of concrete homosexuality is not known and not relevant, he obvious exhibited homosexual thoughts and that is--most strictly--a behavior.

quote:

---

And prejudice is not dependant on whether what is being "pre-judged" is a behavior or a genetic trait.

---

I point out that inconsistency because, regardless of whether homosexuality is wonderful or dreadful, it is a behavior. So is prejudice. Or--more appropriately--rampant drinking. Alcoholism has been proven to be linked to genetic predisposition, homosexuality has made a strong case for that as well, and as for prejudice and other behavior, for all we know they are genetic as well, it's unclear. But the ultimate point here is that we can criticize someone's behavior and it isn't the very same thing as criticizing their race or gender, which are not behaviors.

That analogy would be invalid. And it is neither logical nor fair to stuff them together into some kind of amorphous blob.

Also:

quote:

---

Rowling answered a question about backstory. She didn't ask you to reinterpret a thing. If that causes you to reinterpret something because you somehow think that homosexuals are not bound by ethics that is your thinking.

---

And it truly is about motivation. His motivations may not have changed, but his dientified motivations have, and as readers our only tools to see his motivations are what the author tells us in the writing, and whatever speculation we have on our own. Rowling neither exposed this in the story, nor did I speculate it on my own. Therefore--to me and many others--this is new motivation information. Which forces me, regardless of Rowlings intentions, to re-evaluate his motives.

And it seems obvious to me that he was actually struggling more and more with his heartfelt attraction to Grindy, and less and less with his inner conscience that tells him "these ideas are immoral." Had he been intensely struggling with both the issues, he likely would never have confronted Grindy at all.

quote:

---

And since this is a topic I have strong feelings about I'll restrain myself from further comments.

---

Edit: Ok I'm giving in to temptation.

quote:

---

But the ultimate point here is that we can criticize someone's behavior

---

Emotions are not a behavior. I do not judge someone for their prejudice (an emotion) but for their attempts to force that prejudice onto society (a behavior). But evidently seeing the difference in something that is an emotion and something that is a behavior is not something you are going to accept.

I am sorry but I consider saying that thoughts are a "behavior" is wildly inaccurate. That is a matter of trying to force a definition to fit your own prejudice and nothing more. Behavior is by DEFINITION an ACT. Thought and emotion are simply not acts.

In your economics class example, you are PREDICTING behaviors. When they take place they are acts and external, not something someone has merely thought about. You are confusing the fact that you can try to predict someone's behavior with the behavior itself--although I suspect it is more an excuse for your prejudice than an actual confusion.

I am not going to convince you that somehow having feelings for someone of your own sex isn't evil. You aren't going to convince me that is it.

The fact that Dumbledore had to fight someone he loved hardly made the struggle less. Saying this shows, in my opinion an amazinly superficial knowledge of human feelings. If there would be anything that would increase struggle more it would be seeing someone you love going in a way you yourself might be tempted (thus increasing your temptation) and that at the same time you know to be evil. It increases both the struggle and the tragedy not lessens it. But since it was always clear in the book that Dumbledore loved Grindly (she just didn't put the name on it), I see no change.

Sorry to have given in to temptation to comment further. This isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Time to stop--for me at any rate.

Welcome back to the topic!

I think our disagreement stems completely from this fundamental thing.

quote:

---

I am sorry but I consider saying that thoughts are a "behavior" is wildly inaccurate.

---

And I think it's wildly accurate.

I suppose I cannot convince you to see things my way, but understand, at least--as best you can--why I think this.

Physical action, or surface action, is only the top of a list of ideas that are interconnected and cannot be separated from behavior. This includes: forming an idea, motivation, opportunity, and action. Without each of these things, no character can act.

I therefore define behavior as including thoughts, which I believe are essential to "forming an idea," and "motivation," and especially "recognizing an opportunity."

For the following example, forgive the dry-technical nature I am using to approach this subject:

If I am pre-disposed to behave straight, which I am, incidentally , that pre-disposition helps me form the idea that said girl across the room, we'll call her Jane, is sexually attractive. (Or preferable to whatever other options I happen to notice at this time.) I am motivated by my carnal instincts to be drawn to her and consider her as a potential mate. This may not be voluntary, but it is a driving factor. I think about this, agree with it, and then start thinking of/considering opportunities to get from here to there, strangers to mates, and assess the possibility of making it. (This may sound long-winded and over-rational, but countless such analyses are performed by every single person per day in fractions of seconds.) This thought process, driven by a craving for reproduction, which is created by my genetic predispositions, is an action. It is neither physical nor outward, but even if I dismiss the desire and decide no good opportunities exist, I am still acting even though I never approach her or give myself an opportunity to see her again.

By my definition I have behaved, that sounds odd to say, so, rather I have have exhibited behavior, even if it was invisble and seemingly, outwardly, inconsequential. And it seems to me by your definition I have not.

To be consistent with your definition of behavior, it seems that by choosing to not pursue this woman, this opportunity, I have not exhibited behavior. Even though I have made an active choice.

When Dumbledore struggled to get himself to confront Grindy, it wasn't that he exhibited obvious homosexual behavior by trying to seduce him or something, rather he was delayed in making "the right choice," as he saw it, because he was attracted to Grindy. A conflict of interest. Which is not the same conflict of interest that seemed, to many of us, to exist before this revelation.

J and Zero claim that it's moral to have prejudice against homosexuality, as understood to be a set of behaviors. Zero then extends "behaviors" to include how people are predisposed to act, but it's not clear to me whether he thinks it's moral to have prejudice against predisposition - or even thinks morality can be regarded separately from predisposition.

If it's the latter, there may be no point in Zero continuing with the discussion about whether prejudice is moral. Depending on his views, his only point may be that this part of the discussion is meaningless. (EDIT: Or he may, as he just did before I finished with my post, want to now discuss whether his views are correct.)

JeanneT apparently defines homosexuality as a set of predispositions and claims that it's not moral to have prejudice against it.

It looks like Zero and JeanneT use the same basic definition of homosexuality (predispositions) and possibly disagree on prejudice. J uses a different definition (external behaviors).

Here's how I break it down:

Same-sex attraction: a predisposition (rarely voluntary or learned) to attraction to members of the same sex.

Homosexuality: acting on predispositions to attraction to members of the same sex.

For the sake of my ego, can we use these definitions? Things might go much more smoothly.

It is my opinion that if you disagree with homosexuality, as I do, you can do so without shunning or mistreating the person. Sure, I'm against homosexuality in principal. But I'm also against bigotry. The same set of beliefs that tell me homosexuality is wrong tell me that all people have agency, or the right to choose. Had Dumbledore been a real man and not just a fictional character he would have had the right to choose his sexuality and not be treated badly because of it. As said before I dislike JK Rowling outing him after the novel came out, I think it weakens the power struggle. So my arguments against Dumbledore being gay in this case aren't moral, there literary.

You know, I think Christians are sometimes as much the victims of prejudice as homosexuals. Some people hear that someone is a Christian and immediately assume that they are a raging bigot.

I'm a Christian, but I hate religions. When someone comes to me to tell me that I can't read for myself, and that if I follow their interpretation of the Bible I'll be right and everyone else wrong. My usual thought is, "What drugs might you be on?"

Now we love to tie in dislike, and even hatred of homosexuals to religion. While most religions do call it evil, I can admit I have no like of it myself. While I don't indiscriminately hate those who are gay, I find the actions of gays to go against biology...or nature. Humans are very much designed for male and female to have sex with each other. This is the way we are. Two men cannot have any form of "natural" sex. They aren't designed for it. Two women have the same problem. So is it really a religious basis that homosexuals are disliked and even hated? Or could it be that because it is not what was intended by our physical makeup, those who are not gay think it is wrong?

Hatred exists all around for more reasons than we want to admit. To blindly tag it as a religious bias only applies if it is purely religious in nature. To say that Christians and Muslims hate each other based on religious beliefs....well, a few crusades and long years of fighting (and some still are), would make that something easy to believe. To say Christians hate gays based purely on religion, I think you have to look at those who are performing the violence (on both sides) first and see if it is really the Christians, or those touting religion as their excuse.

quote:

---

Please don't assume that 'Christian' necessarily means hetero, much less anti-gay. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way one conservative section of the church hijacks the term and attempts to apply it exclusively to itself.

---

quote:

---

I have to disagree with RMatthewWare's use of choice. You choose your religion. You don't choose to be straight, gay, or anywhere in between. I'm not terribly sure on his use of lifestyle either. I'm confused as to why he went with religious freedom over sexual orientation. I only get that his religion lets him dislike people if he doesn't do anything to hurt them. If he's saying something else I need help understanding.

---

You do choose your lifestyle. Everyone has certain persuasions to sex, personality, sense of humor, interests in life. It is your choice that makes you what you are. I believe it was Zero that said some people deal with same-sex attraction but don't consider themselves gay. Your actions are a choice, though perhaps your persuasion to be attracted to someone is not.

My religion does not let me dislike people and I didn't say anything of the kind. The point I wanted to make was that someone opposed to homosexuality because of religion does NOT have a right to hate them. What I was saying was that as long as someone's choices don't hurt anyone, then we have to respect that. We don't have to like the choice, but we can't hate the chooser. Is that any clearer?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, but don't blame the religion, blame the members. Just because the members aren't true doesn't mean that the church isn't and it doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve ourselves, even through religion. I think those of us who call ourselves Christian, or any other religion of tolerance, should really practice that tolerance first. If you feel someone is sinning then reach out to them. If they reject you, then that's their right, just as you have a right to believe as you do.

Putting aside incorrect (and unfortunately bigoted) assumptions about who evangelicals hate, I don't even morally disapprove of gay Dumbledore. The books imply that after his teenage years, he ceased engaging in homosexual behavior (to whatever extent he had been practiced it) and spent his life in celibacy. This, to me, is a principled, morally upright, and admirable way for Dumbledore to conduct his life. So I don't morally disapprove of Dumbledore--if anything, I would hold him up as a moral example.

I do disapprove (artistically, not morally) of how Rowling inserted new information requiring a reinterpretation of the text in a way that diminishes and cheapens the deepest themes of the story.

The reality is that every successful author has boatloads of character stuff that never makes it into the story. Look at Tolkien... the only reason we know he had so much backstory is that it was included in the appendices, and subsequent books like The Silmarillion; an option Rowling didn't have. You can successfully argue that the motivation to the characters from all Tolkien's backstory was profound, but that still isn't enough to make it important enough to become part of the tale being told in LoTR.

Anywho, I've been debating whether or not to jump into the homosexual good vs bad debate. It seems to me that most such turn into a bramble of "oh, you believe that? You hateful bigot." "Your the one who is a hateful bigot." Not that I'm saying this of you guys, I wouldn't have expected such simplicities from a group of people who constantly train in the art of rhetoric.

I will add my sentiment though. I believe sex outside of a God sanctioned marriage is a sin, and to that I believe that God would not sanction a homosexual marriage. (As to whether the state should sanction it is a different issue.) Now this is what I believe, does that mean that I hate people who do that? I also believe that smoking tobacco, or anything else short of ham is wrong. It destroys bodies, both the smoker and those around them. Does that mean that I hate smokers? I don't recall anything in the bible that says I must hate anyone, in fact it says that the second great commandment is love thy neighbor as thyself. (with the implied commandment of love thyself.) Why can't I decide for myself that the actions of someone else are wrong without being called a bigot? (And I am talking about actions here not dispositions.) Now I'll add a disclaimer, I am not talking for all Christians all over the earth. I am talking for this Christian. This has been the product of scripture study, meditation and prayer, but I don't expect others to hold my view. I will share it, and defend it, but someone could hold a different view on this and I would still salute them as a brother or sister in the Lord.

As to thoughts being actions, I see some value in that. The Lord, after all, looketh upon the heart. But I hold that someone who has had an evil thought and overcame it is a far better person then one who has never had such a trial. (As if such a person ever existed.)