Bill "everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff" O'Reilly keeps talking about J.K. Rowling's gay wizard
Bill O'Reilly -- who, as Media Matters for America previously noted, said on the August 15 edition of his Fox News show, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff" -- repeatedly discussed the recent revelation by J.K. Rowling, author of the best-selling Harry Potter series, that a primary character in the books, Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, is gay. O'Reilly talked about the revelation with co-host E.D. Hill on the October 22 edition of his radio show and again on two consecutive nights on his television program: on October 23 with Entertainment Weekly senior editor Tina Jordan, and the following night with comedian Dennis Miller.
On the October 23 Radio Factor, O'Reilly teased his Fox News interview with Jordan by saying, "OK, tonight on the Factor ... [w]e're also gonna tell you about Harry Potter and the gay agenda. Apparently that's goin' on."
O'Reilly's October 23 comments on The Radio Factor were highlighted by the Think Progress blog.
From the October 22 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: J.K. Rowling, the author of all those Potter books says that Headmaster Albus Dumbledore is gay. Does that mean anything to anybody? No?
HILL: What does it matter?
O'REILLY: I don't know. She made that reply at New York's Carnegie Hall, and the audience was stunned into silence by the revelation.
HILL: But that's sort of out there.
O'REILLY: Is it?
HILL: Yeah. Dumbledore --
O'REILLY: Did you know Albus Dumbledore was gay?
HILL: Well, no, but --
O'REILLY: Well, apparently there's a picture of him in Key West with three guys. I don't know. I don't even know who Albus Dumbledore is because I don't read these dopey books.
HILL: They're not dopey. They're very good books. But what does that have to do with anything?
O'REILLY: I don't know.
HILL: They're coming out and saying --
O'REILLY: What are you asking me for? See -- have you read these books?
HILL: Because you know everything.
O'REILLY: Thank you.
HILL: Of course I've read 'em.
O'REILLY: OK. Did you know Albus Dumbledore was gay?
HILL: I didn't know that.
O'REILLY: Well, then, are you stunned into silence by knowing it now?
HILL: I still couldn't care less.
O'REILLY: OK, he's gay --
HILL: OK.
O'REILLY: Albus Dumbledore -- just in case. It doesn't make him a bad person as Seinfeld says, but apparently that's big news.
HILL: The Carnegie audience.
O'REILLY: All right. The Red Sox are going to the World Series. I predicted that they would come back, and they have.
From the October 23 edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK, tonight on the Factor, we're gonna get into this topic that we're talking about on the radio a little bit. We're also gonna tell you about Harry Potter and the gay agenda. Apparently that's goin' on.
From the October 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight: Perhaps the most successful book series in the world is Harry Potter, who battles wizards and the occult, stuff like that. Author J.K. Rowling has sold an incredible 350 million books worldwide with seven Potter volumes.
Now reports say Miss Rowling has outed -- one of her characters is gay, which is causing some concern. With us now to analyze: Tina Jordan, senior editor at Entertainment Weekly.
Dumbledore -- I don't know anything about this Potter stuff, so, you know, you can kick my butt here if you want to.
JORDAN: I'll kick your butt. You're the last person in America not to read the books, I bet.
O'REILLY: Listen, I have a lot to read and Dumbledore and all of this. But here's what I don't understand, because I did study up on the story. If J.K. Rowling wanted to make the character gay, why didn't he just make the character gay -- she just make the character gay rather than going to Carnegie Hall in New York -- and you were in the audience --
JORDAN: Yes, I was.
O'REILLY: -- and announcing that he's gay. I don't know -- I don't get the strategy. Is it just publicity?
JORDAN: I don't think it's publicity. And first of all, I can't speak for her because I didn't talk to her about this, but she made several things very clear. And he's -- the fact that he was gay, giving that away in an early volume might possibly have compromised a later plot point.
O'REILLY: OK, but here's what I'm talking about. Why have a gathering of Potter aficionados and then drop the gay bomb on them? Why do that?
JORDAN: Somebody asked the question. She answered the question.
O'REILLY: The question was: Is Dumbledore gay?
JORDAN: No. The question was along the lines of: Did Dumbledore ever find true love? I'm paraphrasing.
O'REILLY: True love.
JORDAN: Yeah.
O'REILLY: Well, she could have said no or yes. She didn't have to say he's, you know, got a condo in Key West. You know what I mean?
JORDAN: Well, that's true, but --
O'REILLY: You know, why did she do it? She did it to provoke. I think this is a provocateur. This woman's a provocateur.
JORDAN: Well, she's a very smart woman.
O'REILLY: I think she's a provocateur.
JORDAN: But let me say this. One thing she did say on Friday night was that the books were a prolonged plea for tolerance. And that's a direct quote.
O'REILLY: OK, and that's a good thing, right?
JORDAN: Right.
O'REILLY: Now, many parents are worried in America about the gay agenda and indoctrination of their children to see homosexuality in a certain way. That debate is raging all over the country. This now becomes part of that debate, does it not?
JORDAN: But aren't those parents the same parents who are refusing to let their children read these books for other reasons?
O'REILLY: I don't know if there's -- yeah, there are parents who don't want the wizards and witches and the occult stuff.
JORDAN: That's right.
O'REILLY: I don't know if they're the same. I think that's a narrow focus group whereas I think the gay indoctrination thing is broader. So, I think that, here now, there is even more controversy in these books because of this statement that Miss Rowling made.
JORDAN: But I think that's a shallow argument. I think that kids are being brought up by and large today to tolerate. I think that, by and large, parents do preach acceptance to their kids, you know.
O'REILLY: In some areas, they do. They don't want indoctrination, though, and I understand that.
JORDAN: But indoctrination's a very strong word. Listen, we all know gay people whether we know it or not.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but do you want your 7-year-old to have a book called Heather Has Two Mommies, and a lot of American parents do not. But anyway, this book -- this is aimed at adolescents, right?
JORDAN: Right.
O'REILLY: Now, Dumbledore is not overtly gay in the book, right?
JORDAN: Absolutely not.
O'REILLY: So, you wouldn't know whether he was gay or not.
JORDAN: And in fact, you don't know anything about the sex lives --
O'REILLY: Of any of them.
JORDAN: -- of any of the teachers. No.
O'REILLY: Although those wizards, I'm very suspicious about what they're doing in their spare time.
JORDAN: Well, they are magic you know.
O'REILLY: So, I think, this is my conclusion is that J.K. Rowling is a provocateur, did it on purpose, and now is just going to let all hell break loose.
Last word?
JORDAN: I think that if she makes people think, if she makes -- if you realize that there are gay people out there, we all know them, you know --
O'REILLY: And now we know another one.
JORDAN: It doesn't make a difference.
O'REILLY: And now we know another one: Dumbledore. Thank you for coming in, Miss Jordan.
From the October 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
MILLER: No, nothing dramatic has happened to me, except this J.K. Rowling revelation. That's the most dramatic thing in my life.
O'REILLY: Yeah, that -- that's --
MILLER: Although I --
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
MILLER: No, I shouldn't be surprised that Dumbledore was gay. I noticed how his wand seemed to shake every time the fairies came around.
But the simple fact is, I don't need to know that Dumbledore is gay. I'm bored with people's sexuality. I could care less about anybody's sexuality, all right? I don't care if Huck Finn was a he-she. I dug the book.
I don't like Atticus Finch 'cause he was straight; I like him 'cause he was straight-laced.
O'REILLY: All right, but here's the issue.
MILLER: And, you know, I guess --
O'REILLY: Here's -- you can talk about this on your radio show tomorrow. There are millions of Americans who feel that the media and the educational system is trying to indoctrinate their children to a certain way of life, and that includes parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals.
And that's what this Rowling thing is all about, because she sells so many books. So many kids read it, that she comes out and says, "Oh, Dumbledore is gay, and that's great." And this -- it's another in the indoctrination thing. That's what the belief system is among some Americans.
MILLER: I'll be honest with you. I don't think you can indoctrinate a kid into being gay. You might indoctrinate him into trying it once and him going, "I guess I'm not gay."
[crosstalk]
O'REILLY: No, but tolerance. It's -- you know, he's not going to be gay, but it's tolerance of it.
MILLER: Good.
O'REILLY: And religious people say, "We don't" -- you know.
MILLER: All right, I got to go with that. We've been intolerant long enough. I've got to go with that. And you know something? I think most kids look at stuff like this, and they go, "I could care less if Dumbledore is gay. I'm trying to enjoy the book here."
This is J.K. Rowling. If she had been this predictable and this tedious in writing the books as she was in this revelation, we wouldn't know her name, much less her initials.
O'REILLY: All right, so I agree with you that kids don't care whether Dumbledore is gay. They just want to read the book, 'cause it's a fun book. And leave that out of it! Correct?
MILLER: All right. There you go, Billy. That's my feeling.
O'REILLY: Dennis Miller, everybody.
Isn't Ms. Rawling British? If so, I think we should bomb them for allowing her gay agenda to affect our kids. Remember, (D)umbledore,is gay.
She doesn't have a 'gay agenda' and just what is so wrong about this 'revelation'? Why should this be such a big thing? Why are there still so many bigots out there who just cannot accept that there are not only gay people out there but some who are in positions of responsability and probably do some amazing things.
I'm English and not gay, but I seriously don't see a problem here. English society does not have a 'gay problem' in the same way that you seem to. What I do see is that mainstream society still seems to have a problem with gay heroes and heroines. This is a character in a fictional book series. I've never read it so I don't really know just how important he is other than as a mentor figure and I've only seen the first film.
I wish some of you would just grow up and stop hiding behind this indoctrination crap that you spout. Tolerance and acceptance is the way forward, it's not about promotion and conversion although there's no reason why people who are gay shouldn't feel proud of the way they feel - they've felt the prejudice for long enough.
SI_W....Sorry, it was sarcasm. I'll put on of those smiles there next time. But what the hell, why not bomb England? :) Is that better?
Because I live there.
Still, it kind of makes up for my misunderstanding I guess... ;)
Still meant what I said though, just redirect to someone else.
OKAY, since Iran is targeted, forget England...
Can we still bomb you? We've gotta practice up for Iran... ;>)
Can we trust not to bomb the airfields you'll eventually be flying from to bomb Iran though?
Ooohh...good idea. Thanks.
You gotta understand, friend, we don't believe in all that plannin' stuff when we go to war. We just go kick some ass. Wooooweeee...! ;>)
A troll might come by SI_W, or if you feel up to going round and round with Rinohunter. Bill wasn't getting much back from Miller or Jordon(sp?). Miller sounds fairly sane.
There is a not quite theory that alot of the horror of the gay's, media sourced or elsewhere comes from deeply closeted gays, in influential positions. Bill's a possible in this catagory.
For fantasy reading I prefer Terry Prachett, another Englishman. The dwarf character Cherry Littlebottom, works as the first forensic officer of the law, Introduced in "Feet of Clay", she outs herself as a female. This is considered scandalous. For the dwarves a large part of courtship is confirming that your intended, beneath the beard and chainmail is indeed of the opposit sex. One dwarf character put it, "I realise one of my parents was female, but at least she had the dignity to keep it to herself."
Which is an example of Prachett taking on a sensitive concept at a diagonal.
I didn't watch the video, just read the transcripts but it seemed that Bill wasn't getting much change from anyone. Seemed like he was grudgingly accepting that it wasn't a problem...
Isn't Ms. Rawling British?
Who's Ms Rawling, and who cares if she's British? The author of the books is named Rowling.
My brother is gay, and the only "gay agenda" I've ever seen is his Day-Timer, and that isn't very threatening at all.
WTF was she thinking by saying this?
What do you mean? I imagine she was asked a question about a character and she shared the information about the character. What is the big deal?
She was responding to a question. I am paraphrasing, but according to what I've read, the question was, "does Dumbledore find true love"?
The question is then answered with, "Dumbledore is gay."
I'm all for being honest and forthright, but come on!
It's not enough that her successful fantasy empire is already chock full of sorcery, witchcraft, dark arts, etc. so she has to feed the American right wing even more ammunition?
According the BBC, which again isn't a transcript, what happened was this:
She took audience questions and was asked if Dumbledore found "true love".
"Dumbledore is gay," she said, adding he was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who he beat in a battle between good and bad wizards long ago. <!-- E SF -->
The audience gasped, then applauded. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy," she said.
"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," she added, saying Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down" and his love for Grindelwald was his "great tragedy".
"Oh, my god," Rowling, 42, concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm
Pete, first off I don't think Rowlings gives a hoot about intolerant critics of her books. Her main theme is tolerance. Who cares what intolerant idiots have to complain about the book. You are over simplifing her answer she didn't simply respond he's gay and left it as the answer. The he's gay part prefaced her discussing the history of his love life.I always found it interesting when writers devulged this kind of "insider information" about how they developed the characters. It is one of the interesting things about going to book readings when there is question and answer sessions. It is always interesting to see how your take differs from the writer's. I really get a kick out of when song writers interpret the true meaning behind their songs and how different it is from what you took away...something that is somewhat lost in the age of video interpretations. For example how many people played "Every Breath You Take" when they wanted to be romantic...only problem is it was apparently written about stalking...ooops...way to set the mood. (-:
Hey Pete,
By saying Rowling's statement gives the American right ammunition is to say that the "family values" righties have a legitimate premise. They don't. It's that simple.
They are the ones who have a problem with giving equal standing, recognition and benefits to gay Americans.
They have freedom issues, not ammunition.
And as for the part about not giving Right Wingers ammunition... then what? Just slink back out of sight and not be what we are? That's exactly what the intolerant part of the Right Wing wants us to do. Gay people are out of the closet, and they're not going back. Even if Bush does veto the bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against gay people.
Hi Bittermarv,
It's been a long day, my brain is tiresd so I may be having comprehension problems. But are you taking me to task?
I think we are very much in agreement on this issue.
I think we are. I responded to your post to contribute to the idea that we shouldn't be giving Right Wingers ammo. (Pete592, 239, 123, whateverr originally said something about how we shouldn't give them ammo.) I say, Screw 'em. They're gonna find ammo whereever regardless of what we do. Why should we change our lives to adapt to their intolerance?
So no, I wasn't taking you to task. I was taking to task the idea of just rolling over in the face of opposition to tolerance.
And it's been a long day for me, too, so I'm sure that was clear as mud. =)
Thanks Bittermarv. Thankyou for clearing that up.
I think it's clear from the detail in the books that Rowling had fleshed out minutia about all of the characters. It's her little world, and she created everyone's backstory. So that's what she told them. I don't think there's anything more to it than that. If she was really pushing an agenda, she could have easily introduced this information into the books.
Sorry, couldn't resist! Forgive me, Neal!
Young wizard dreams
Dream, ev'ry dream on your own
I wanted to teach,
May-be you end up alone
Dumbledore says he'd love to be with you
If he had the time
So you turn to the only friend you can find
There in your blind
Hustler, when i'm at school
I sit upon the pot,
thinkin' you're nip's were cool,
while I looked at your "cat"
And I'd play
Head-master calls!
Says that I screwed up in class!
He grabbed my balls,
and asked me to spank my @ss!
Dumbledore, I can't let you take me
Like Hermiety
I used my wand on her and I sure made her smile,
I made her smile
Hustler, when I'm at school
I sit upon the pot,
thinkin' you're nip's were cool,
while I looked at your "cat"
And I'd play
Had wicked thoughts, about Hermiety!
She had other plans
wasted her life with that muggle Weasley
I understand
Hustler, when I'm at school
I sit upon the pot,
thinkin' you're nip's were cool,
while I looked at your "cat"
come today!
I don't see a problem with O'Reilly discussing this Rowlings put it out there and I assume she did so expecting it would open a discussion about it. My problem is with the indoctrination and gay agenda crap. I am not sure how this character being gay indoctrinate or promotes any type of agenda. Without Rowlings saying so there apparently isn't anything in the book that would inform the reader so where is the agenda or indoctrination. Character development is something every writer does and not all gets written about in the actual story obviously in Rowlings mind while she was developing the character he was gay...about the only thing the information is good for is some obscure trivia game question. IMO
"She did it to provoke. I think this is a provocateur. This woman's a provocateur."
Leaping to conclusions again, eh, Billo? You haven't read J.K. Rowling's books...although you say they're dopey. You are not familiar with the character, Dumbledore. You didn't know the curcumstances of Rowling's Carnegie Hall revelation about Dumbledore. Yet, Bill, you can speak authoritatively that J.K Rowling is a provacateur.
No, Bill, J.K. Rowling is a thoughtful novelist who has created imaginative histories of all her fictional characters. A gay agenda you say? Tolerance is not a gay thing, Bill. It's a decent human being thing. You could only wish you had the talent of a creative writer like J.K. Rowling who has brought joy to millions of people, children and adults alike. What is going to be your legacy, Bill?.
Maybe she did do it to provoke but I would follow that up with what was she trying to provok and maybe it was a positive poke not a negative one. Of course I'm speculating here maybe she just answered a question off the cuff and no additional purpose other then sharing her character.
Bill's writing legacy? "Hey, put down that pipe and get MY pipe UP."
Can we finally see some evidence of this indoctrination by gays towards those that are not gay, children or adults? Because I don't see it, I mean it's not happening around me, or anyone I know, or anywhere I know of, or by anyone I have ever heard of........if it's happening and is such a cultural threat, then it should be easy to pony up this evidence.
How ridiculous.
Just more of the "gay is creeping into our lives in some stealth manner and you'd better watch out" narrative that Bill pushes. He can't hide his contempt for gays anymore, and that is his perfect right, but why doesn't he find and waltz into the "No Spin Zone" and be honest about it, for once.
I agree, Tommy...unless the gay indoctrination is too insidious for my powers of perception I don't see it. But this reminds me of an article I read a while back (can't remember where) that mentioned a belief by some very extreme fundamentalist Christians that gays are surrounded by evil spirits and that the danger of being in physical proximity to gay people is that the evil spirits may choose to surround you...in which case you turn gay, I guess. Pretty primitive stuff, huh? But deep down I don't think Billo's thinking is much more advanced than that. Just ignorant and misinformed is what it is... Hey, I think I just described the average Billo viewer. ;>)
I know what you're saying, Tommy, it's just a bizarre point of view. The idea that people want to live their lives just like everybody else is "pushing an agenda" or "indoctrinating".
And BilldO let's these strange phobias fly out of his mouth as if they're perfectly reasonable , or facts.I hope all of the wizards start "clustering" just to scare BilldO.
Them "evil spirits" are most attracted to people who are angry, out of control, quick with demonization of others, ignore reality,,,,,hmm.
Quick, Bill, call the priest!
Thanks for that post, Tommy.
I think it was a good idea for O'Reilly to have quit the teaching profession.
I can't imagine anyone calling any book "dopey" if they haven't read the book.
Although I haven't read any of them yet, I'm sure they're a lot less dopey than O'Reilly's contribution to the world of fiction.
I think the saddest thing is that some kid has to call him dad.
How could anyone ever be proud of this man?
The books are great fun. Inventive, imaginative, and full of interesting places and ideas. If you like the fantasy genre at all, you'll probably enjoy them. I had issues with the endings of a lot of the books (she reworks a similar kind of plot into each one of them, IMO, but I won't say more) but getting there is a lot of fun.
And the movies, while they've gotten better to the point of actually being good, don't do the books full justice.
I plan on reading them eventually. The reason I haven't yet, is that my grandkids have explained each book to me in great detail and I already know what happens.
My wife has just finished the fourth book and we've got them all.
I just need time to forget the plot-lines and more time to read them.
Have your grandkids read them to you. =) Isn't that what grandkids are for?
"Hello, Dumbledore"
"So anyway I'd be rubbing your crystal ball and getting your broom really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your magic wand but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business..."
Stop it, Neon...!!! You want everyone here to turn gay??? Jeeez, man... ;>)
I hope I didn't overdo it. I just wanted to point out that it's a good thing Billdo is on OUR side. The heterosexual side. Imagine the chaos if he used his sweet-talkin' style to promote the gay agenda. We all probably would have gotten the gay by now...
I was just wondering, Neon...do gays think for themselves? And do they know how to order ice tea politely? Just curious...thought you might know.
...or maybe I'll just ask Bill instead. After all he is the expert on cultural matters, right?
Can Bill have an intelligent conversation?
And risk losing 90% of his audience?
Are you nuts?
From my "handle", I would assume you know by know my stance on politics. But in this case, I really don't see the big deal whether this character is gay or not. I mean, I dont hate gays, I have many gay friends, and dont see a problem with it. In fact, many republicans don't have a problem with the gay society. Sure, some of us may not agree with gay marriage, gay adoption, or raising kids, but thats another topic all together.With all that being said, I really find it stupid for Rowling to come out with her comments about the character being gay because it is a book targeted at a childrens audience. So as much as I personally could care less if a character is gay, its the target audience of the book that in which i find the comments innappropriate.
She either made her comments thinking it was not a big deal at all, or she was doing it to get a rise of society. If it was the latter, it definately worked. I dont know how much of a political agenda she had, or if it was even enough to be on a BO or any other media (including liberal media), I just think it was the wrong this to say because it served no purpose.
If she wanted to push a gay agenda, she could have done so in her books. Obviously she has the means to reach a lot of people.
Good writers develop backstories for their characters. They define what their upbringing was like, major events in their lives, etc. It creates more depth and consistency. So when she's asked about a character's history, she answered the question.
I also find it interesting that you minimize the amount of Conservatives that actually do have a problem with homosexuality, and you distinguish yourself from their intolerant views...but then you have a problem with her comments because her books are aimed at children. Odd, indeed. If you don't have a problem with homosexuality, why shouldn't children be told that it's not something they should have a problem with? Seems like you should consider that a positive message.
I don't know if this has been brought up, but the whole reason she "outed" Dumbledore actually made a lot of sense. The next movie was going to make reference to him having a past female love and she felt that if the movies were going to be true to her interpretation of the characters then she had to let them know that he was in fact gay.
That is a good point, however I do not follow the book series at all - im more of an autobiography/non fiction type. I understand the scenario, but as i've said below, my religious beliefs do cause some displeasure with her comments. Im not saying she is wrong for including it in her book or speaking against a question about her book. I just think that including this type of controversial activity in a childrens book is not right. Just as people think its wrong to push religion, evolution, etc onto children, I dont think its right to push homosexuality on them either. But thats just my opinion and I dont think others are wrong for theirs.
Im not saying she is wrong for including it in her book or speaking against a question about her book. I just think that including this type of controversial activity in a childrens book is not right.
Just to be clear, she didn't "speak against a question about her book" nor did she include anything about homosexuals in her books.
People rarely if ever object to religion in a book, or even evolution, unless those books are being provided to kids via a state sponsored educational system. The Harry Potter books are primarily sold to individuals who choose to read them. I don't remember the last time anyone complained about kids reading religious books as kids that were acquired by the parents.
Nobody ever complains that books have heterosexuals in them. Most books do, in fact, whether their sexuality is explicitly explained or not. Heterosexuals are commonly found in our society. It's only when there's the mere mention of a gay character that any controversy occurs with regards to a characters sexuality, and yet gay people are a common fixture in our society as well, whether homophobic people care to believe it or not.
So I simply disagree with those arguments. The only indoctrination that occurs is when people try to claim that homosexuality is a "sin" or against nature, both concepts firmly rooted in religion.
and yet gay people are a common fixture in our society as well, whether homophobic people care to believe it or not.
As we've had a pretty good, civil discussion so far - which is not very common on here between people with different beliefs, Ill have to disagree a bit with that comment.
I dont think anyone doesn't believe that there is a homosexual entity in our society. I think some people just do not want to witness, see, or hear about the homosexual part of society.
As I've said previously that I have nothing personal against homosexual society, but I do have religious beliefs to where I dont necessarily condone it. I think alot of what sets people off who are on the brink of acceptance for the homosexual community is the amount of attention that they purposely try to attract - pride parades, protests, marches, etc. For me personally, I have gay friends who are great people and I accept them for who they are, but when I see these flamboyant parades and stories about how they are marching into catholic churches for show, it really does force me to lose respect for the society that they want to be. In my opinion, if you want to be like everyone else and accepted like everyone else, then act accordingly like everyone else. You have a much better chance of gaining the respect of the doubters if you don't give them reasons to move farther from the respect you are trying so hard to gain. Make sense?
You do realize that you just admitted to using the example of a few to establish your attitude about the whole. Using similar logic, I could denounce church-goers because of Westboro Baptist Church.
How is it that you "don't necessarily condone" homosexual behavior, but you accept your gay friends for who they are? Do your religious beliefs have anything to do with societal standards of behavior, or are those moral concerns? If they're moral concerns (which they surely are), how can you accept someone for who they are when you think homosexuality might be a sin?
It seems to me like if you believe homosexuality is chosen, then you have no reason whatsoever to accept it. If you believe that it's something one is born with, then you have no logical reason to not condone it fully. This is something you probably should figure out, one way or the other.
Not true at all. I dont know whether homoesexuality is a choice or something you are born with, because Im not homosexual, and it doesn't matter which it is.
The point is that you are seeing everything as black and white. I have religious views, and I do not push those views on other people. I have my beliefs and other people have theirs. Just because Im catholic and only believe in the catholic religion, does not mean I wont be friends with someone who is jewish or agnostic. Its their belief not mine. Just as I have friends who are homosexual, does not mean I have to agree with their lifestyle. But it is their lifestyle, and I accept it because I accept them for who they are, not what they do.
By saying I do not condone homosexuality means that I do agree with it, but still accept it. I'm sure there are many things out there that you do not agree with, but you accept them.
Dont try to push this into something more than it is becuase its not what you want to hear, or what you believe in.
"Not true at all. I dont know whether homoesexuality is a choice or something you are born with, because Im not homosexual, and it doesn't matter which it is."
First off, you don't have to be homosexual to reach a conclusion here. Did you choose to be straight? If it's a choice, then it's a choice everyone faces. If this choice only occurs to some people, then obviously there's something different about them to begin with. And it makes a great deal of difference. If it's innate, then it doesn't make any sense to believe that it's immoral, as the church teaches.
"The point is that you are seeing everything as black and white. I have religious views, and I do not push those views on other people. I have my beliefs and other people have theirs. Just because Im catholic and only believe in the catholic religion, does not mean I wont be friends with someone who is jewish or agnostic. Its their belief not mine. Just as I have friends who are homosexual, does not mean I have to agree with their lifestyle. But it is their lifestyle, and I accept it because I accept them for who they are, not what they do."
You have it exactly reversed. I don't see things in black and white, but religious morality does. That's why I'm pointing out that religious grounds make it a moral issue. I find it hard to believe that the Catholic church accepts "grey" areas of moral relativism. If you've got some examples to back that up, let's hear them. Homosexuality is not a "belief". I don't see how you can compare it to a separate religious faith. And besides, if it's a sin, then what they do defines who they are.
"By saying I do not condone homosexuality means that I do agree with it, but still accept it. I'm sure there are many things out there that you do not agree with, but you accept them."
I don't see things in religious moral terms, so your comparison is utterly meaningless. I'm not beholden to the dictation of any preacher or priest.
"Dont try to push this into something more than it is becuase its not what you want to hear, or what you believe in."
If you believe in your faith, then I don't understand how you accept immoral behavior. I wouldn't accept someone who is an adulterer, or a thief, or a liar. And I'm not religious. I find the behavior contemptible, so I wouldn't want to associate with such people.
The question is, do you believe what your church tells you about homosexuality or don't you? If you do, then I don't see how you accept willfully immoral and sinful behavior anymore than I accept a philanderer as a friend. If you don't believe what they tell you (and I have no problem with that), then not condoning the behavior because of your religious beliefs doesn't make a lot of sense.
Do you see the conflict there? The issue isn't what I want to hear, it's that you're trying to straddle the fence over a behavior that your faith condemns, and that comes off as a little disingenuous.
First off, you don't have to be homosexual to reach a conclusion here. Did you choose to be straight? If it's a choice, then it's a choice everyone faces. If this choice only occurs to some people, then obviously there's something different about them to begin with. And it makes a great deal of difference. If it's innate, then it doesn't make any sense to believe that it's immoral, as the church teaches.
First, I am not the one sayings its innate, you are. Also, pedophiles claim they are born that way, so since it is innate, that means it is right? What is considered morally right to you, may not be morally right to me.
You have it exactly reversed. I don't see things in black and white, but religious morality does. That's why I'm pointing out that religious grounds make it a moral issue. I find it hard to believe that the Catholic church accepts "grey" areas of moral relativism. If you've got some examples to back that up, let's hear them. Homosexuality is not a "belief". I don't see how you can compare it to a separate religious faith. And besides, if it's a sin, then what they do defines who they are.
I am not saying homosexuality is a faith. Im saying homosexuality is a part of society. I am also a part of society, as are you. Religion is also a part of society. I have never once said that my faith accepts homosexuality, I said that I accept that homosexuality is a part of our society. Right wing and left wing extremist are also part of our society. Just because I accept that a left wing extremist is a part of our society, does not mean I condone being a left wing extremist. These are big differences. And if you want to get technical about certain religions - christiany does believe homosexuality is a sin, but it also preaches forgiveness and to love everyone regardless. Therefore, I do have freinds who engage in what i consider a sin, but i still love them as a friend and a person. Pre-marital sex is also a sin, but I'm not going to stop being freinds with people because they want to get laid without being married. Another point is, that some people are not the same religion as I am, so i cannot hold them to my beliefs. I follow mine, they follow theirs. Separating people's belief of society and religion in my opinion is as basic as the separation of church and state. You are going under the assumption that everyone who is religious is a fanatic or extremist, which is not true.
I don't see things in religious moral terms, so your comparison is utterly meaningless. I'm not beholden to the dictation of any preacher or priest.
My comparison is meaningless to you, as is yours to me. Why would i take scrutiny of my faith by an atheist?
If you believe in your faith, then I don't understand how you accept immoral behavior. I wouldn't accept someone who is an adulterer, or a thief, or a liar. And I'm not religious. I find the behavior contemptible, so I wouldn't want to associate with such people.
I wouldnt expect you to understand, because you obviously have no religous faith. I wouldnt accept a pedophile, dog killer, murderer, etc. But what does that have to do with the basis of my religion, and accepting that the rest of society outside of my church has a right to have different beliefs and live different lifestyles.
(CONT)
The question is, do you believe what your church tells you about homosexuality or don't you? If you do, then I don't see how you accept willfully immoral and sinful behavior anymore than I accept a philanderer as a friend. If you don't believe what they tell you (and I have no problem with that), then not condoning the behavior because of your religious beliefs doesn't make a lot of sense.
I dont know how many different ways or times to tell you. But since you are not a religous person, and that is your right, there is nothing i can say that will help you to understand things from my point of view. The point is that I am not personally committing what i believe are sinful acts, and that is enough for me. I am not a bible beater, or one who pushes my religious views on people, so they are free to live their lives without me getting into the middle of it. After all, people are just people. I worry about what i do myself, not about what others do. But again, since you are atheist, I wouldnt expect you to understand any religous views.
Do you see the conflict there? The issue isn't what I want to hear, it's that you're trying to straddle the fence over a behavior that your faith condemns, and that comes off as a little disingenuous.
The only conflict here is someone who isnt religious debating with someone who is. Im not trying to straddle any fence at all, you are trying to get me to pick sides, which is not going to happen. I dont need to justify my faith or beliefs to anyone, much less to someone who does not have any.
Please read all before responding, if you choose to...
"First, I am not the one sayings its innate, you are. Also, pedophiles claim they are born that way, so since it is innate, that means it is right? What is considered morally right to you, may not be morally right to me."
All I'm pointing out is that it does make a difference. As for pedophiles, they clearly do harm, which goes against my moral code.
"I am not saying homosexuality is a faith. Im saying homosexuality is a part of society...You are going under the assumption that everyone who is religious is a fanatic or extremist, which is not true."
You were comparing homosexuality to a faith, and now you're comparing it to political views. Those parallels are not valid because your faith asserts that homosexuality is morally wrong, which is a big difference. It simply doesn't fly to say that you can accept an immoral behavior because you can accept the fact that people have different religious and political views. Slavery was a part of society, but that didn't give anyone valid grounds to accept it. If it's wrong, it's wrong, but I think you see the vital distinction between slavery and homosexuality.
I'm not going under any such assumption about people of faith. I'm specifically talking about your statement that you did not condone homosexuality because of your religion. I'm not sure how you can read "if you don't believe what they tell you" and then suggest that I think everyone who is religious is a fanatic.
"My comparison is meaningless to you, as is yours to me. Why would i take scrutiny of my faith by an atheist?"
I wasn't scrutinizing your faith, I was scrutinizing your words. You mentioned that your religion caused you to not condone homosexuality, while at the same time you're accepting what you claim is a sin. Surely someone can question that without asking you to defend your faith in general.
"The point is that I am not personally committing what i believe are sinful acts, and that is enough for me. I am not a bible beater..."
Then you ARE condoning homosexuality. You already mentioned forgiveness, one definition, and now it's something you disregard or overlook ("I worry about what I do...not about what others do"). "...They are free to live their lives without me getting into the middle of it..." - to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior - Dictionary.com
"The only conflict here is someone who isnt religious debating with someone who is. Im not trying to straddle any fence at all, you are trying to get me to pick sides, which is not going to happen. I dont need to justify my faith or beliefs to anyone, much less to someone who does not have any."
A little touchy for someone who supposedly accepts those with alternate points of view, don't you think? Again, I'm not asking you to justify your faith, I'm asking you to explain your words. It's really a rather tremendous difference.
It seems to me like the bottom line here is that you're distinguishing between sins that are harmful and those that aren't. That's fine, I understand that. My morals are based on the rights of others and societal interests, so there's some common ground there. You condone sin in a societal sense, as long as it's not harmful, but it still bothers you because of your faith.
That is a perfect example of one of my issues with organized religion, but that wasn't the thrust of my comments. You believe whatever makes you happy. But it leads me back to the question I asked earlier and you didn't answer;If you don't have a (personal) problem with homosexuality, why shouldn't children be told that it's not something they should have a problem with? If you believe that "people are people", that it exists in society so people should accept it, then why shouldn't that message be amplified? It's simply tolerance, which you clearly believe is a positive concept.
Am I misunderstanding you at all? If so, please correct me. If not, I expect you to correct your assertion that an atheist is incapable of understanding your viewpoint.
I mean, I dont hate gays, I have many gay friends, and dont see a problem with it. In fact, many republicans don't have a problem with the gay society. Sure, some of us may not agree with gay marriage, gay adoption, or raising kids, but thats another topic all together.
You seem like a nice, well meaning person. So I ask in all seriousness, You don't see any conflict between these two sentences you wrote?
If one of your gay friends invited you to his or her same sex marriage, would you go? If child services came around to ask you about your gay friends that want to adopt, what would you say to them?
I just don't understand how one can "not have a problem with gay society" and yet be against all of the things that would let them live a life just like yours.
Well, I will address your question because you asked without attitude - like many others on here do.
I do not have a problem someone being homosexual. I would not tell that person that it was wrong, because they in fact, are living their own lives. Now just because I do not have a problem with it, does not mean I condone it. I do not agree with homosexuality or gay marriage because those are my personal beliefs and religious beliefs. But just as everyone has the right to freedom of religion with out people talking down on it (unfortunately that always happens), other people ahve the right to live their own lives without my interferance.
As far as the two specific scenarios, I would not attend the wedding because I am a religious person and it goes against my religious beliefs. However, I would still wish my friend the best.
In regards to the child scenario, I would not comment positively or negatively on the matter to any social worker.
I accept the homosexual society as it is, and it isn not going anywhere. But I certainly do not condone the activities and nor will I stand behind them with praise.
Make sense?
Reasonable enough.
I totally support your answer that you would not attend such a wedding. Your beliefs. Your actions. I'm not sure how I would react to someone who I consider a friend telling me they wouldn't attend the celebration of one of the best things in my life because of such beliefs. I might not consider them a friend any longer. But those are choices we make.
But it does make me want to ask, Would you let your religious beliefs ... hmm... not sure how to word this... persuade you to deny (within your power, that is) other people the same constitutional rights you exercise?
I'm not sure how I would react to someone who I consider a friend telling me they wouldn't attend the celebration of one of the best things in my life because of such beliefs. I might not consider them a friend any longer. But those are choices we make.
I would expect the person to act the same towards me as I do them. I do not condone the decision they are making about marriage, but I still wish them the best and would not stop being freinds with them because of their personal choices and beliefs. Just as I would expect them to respect my decision and beliefs not to attend. That is really my view on the homosexual society. You can request that people give you the right to live your life, but do not expect them to agree with your choices. So in short, it would really make the homosexual friend a hypocrite if i respected his decision and lifestyle, but he did not respect mine decision and lifestyle.
But it does make me want to ask, Would you let your religious beliefs ... hmm... not sure how to word this... persuade you to deny (within your power, that is) other people the same constitutional rights you exercise?
I do not, and have not ever tried to deny anyone their constitutional rights. Obviously, the current goverment & society does not view gay marriage as a constitutional right - and im guessing this is the topic of your question, no? If the issue was on the ballot, it would be my constitutional right to cast my vote as to my religious beliefs. If it did pass, I would not ever protest the voters decision. If it was made a constitutional ammendment, then I would stand by that, just as I stand by all the consitutional rights.
Actually what they are doing is striving to gain the same rights as the rest of us have. Much like the blacks did in days gone by.
What is wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with striving to gain your rights, and I am not telling anyone they can't. What I am is saying not everyone believes those rights should be given. When you make a decision go in public to make a statement - you must be prepared to accept that not everyone is going to take your stance what you believe should be your right. Alot of times with protests, it comes down to the matter of how you protest. People just others based on their actions, and the actions of some protest groups do not effect everyone positively.
As far as the black statement, the situations are much different. No one is holding anyone hostage or as a slave, or anything else as such. No one will deny that the blacks were not treated fairly in regards to what rights they had by law, even I will back the black race on that fact.
Now if you want to argue on whether they should or should not be given the rights they are seeking is a totally different topic.
This makes me wonder about Gandalf...and Frodo, for that matter. Did Frodo ever have a girlfriend?
Nerzog, I'm reminded of an article I once read about Bush and Rove and their Texas roots. The author jokingly commented that in Texas if a man is not an avid hunter he's presumed to be gay. Perhaps you could apply the Texas gayness test to these characters...or would that be inappropriate here? ;>)
Yeah, cuz what homosexual would want to spend all day with his hands wrapped around a long hard instrument while waiting for the opportunity to spray buckshot all over the place? ; )
That's great. Thanks for the hearty laugh.
Gollum wasn't following Frodo just because of a ring!
I always knew that Frodo and Sam had something special going on. Did you see the way they look at each other so wistfully throughout the movie? Brokeback Mountain meets Mount Doom.
you know, considering the number of books shes put out, it's surprising this wasn't discovered before. maybe wizards have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy too....
Well, it never really had that much to do with the story. I guess Dumbledore might have revealed it himself late in the series to explain some of his mistakes. But other than that, it wouldn't have come up. Dumbledore might have avoided talking about the "whys" things happened because of his pride, not wanting to show his mistake at letting his emotions cloud his judgment.
From various interviews, I've always gotten the impression that Rowling had fleshed out a lot of her characters a great deal more than what is seen in the book. (I think she even mentioned something about releasing an encyclopedia like book about the series.) I think one of the quotes from Rowling was "I've always thought of Dumbledore as gay." She knows these characters better than the rest of us, and it influenced how she wrote each character's story. I think it shows a brilliant mind that she not only had this person involved in a particular activity, but could even talk about WHY that character was involved in that activity, even though the causation wasn't a plot point.
I love that little glimpse into the mind of the writer.
Maybe it is a publicity to stunt to sell more books....at which time the Green people will complain that she has killed enough trees for paper...at which time, the lumberjack unions will be up in arms about losing jobs..then the textile industry won't make anymoe plaid shirts....then the detergent people won't sell as much so Cheer...etc. etc. etc. and we can all blame it on the Clintons because they allowed books to be read by young people. Bill is onto something here.
Maybe it's a stunt to get the bible belt to buy more books so they can burn them in outrage, then they can get the blame for the shrinking rainforests and contributing to global warming...
I read somewhere that the first instance of this was the next movie's script had someone showing up as Dumbledore's old flame, and that the character was a woman. Rowling said "Hmm, I don't think this is going to work because.." and so the info about Dumbledore was coming out regardless.
puuuuunn
I read the same thing, Dex, which is why I am not inclined to believe that at Carnegie Hall Rowling was gratuitously trying to shock, provoke or sensationalize...or to turn everyone gay.
50 years from now there's two things that people will be certain to say:
"Harry Potter-man those were great books."
"Bill Who?"
"Harry Potter-man those were great books."
One correction, in 50 years the quote will be
"Harry Potter -- man, those are great books." Cuz everyone will still be reading them. The generation who read (and reads) potter as kids and teens will be given copies to their own kids. That's gonna be cool.
(be givING copies... Me nose gramma.)
Wait a minute, I think every one's missing the real revelation here.
Dennis Miller has a radio show?
When the first Harry Potter book came out, I ignored it. The hype over the second book release made me wonder why so many people were going over the top. So I got the first one from the library and began one night to read it out loud to my 3 kids...
I only got to read it aloud that one night. The three kept wrestling the book away from each other to find out what would happen next, and we were all hooked. The books are full of humor, adventure, heroism and a strong moral sense. They make the "Left Behind" series look puny and mean--spirited by comparison.
Harry Potter presents a problem for hard righties. The story is very popular among the the next generation of leaders.
It's a problem for them because the heroism in the story departs from the rugged individual narrative that drives conservative thinking. The Potter series highlights communal heroism, each looking out for the other. It teaches tolerance, equality, forgiveness and collectivism. It's a handbook of Progressive principles.
Rowlings is the anti-Ayn Rand
Yep. Another big problem for the righties is that Rowlings herself said that one of the messages she tried to put forth through the books was "Question Authority."
The books, she said, were "a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry" as well as a lesson for kids "to question authority.... You should not assume the establishment tells you the truth."
I got into the Potter books in a similar way. I didn't read the first book, and in the newspaper saw an article about a huge line of people waiting for the second book, so I decided to read one for myself. I also became hooked, and was in the hugest line of all, the line for the final book. Great reading for sure!
Did you get in line at midnight?
I took a risk and waited until the next day, though I was tempted to go take pictures of the people in line. The bookstore I went to said they were prepared and stocked up to be sure they had more than enough copies of the book.
Is today Bill O'Reilly Day?
Are we having cake & ice cream? Balloons?
Wow 3 threads, & all about Mr. Bill ;-)
I'm not sure why J.K. Rowling felt the need to announce this, but it's her fictional charactor, & she can do as she wants.
Unless she's Gay herself, why would Bill even think she's pushing a Gay agenda?
"Unless she's Gay herself, why would Bill even think she's pushing a Gay agenda?"
Uhhh...he was just saying that because he's a provacateur?
But wait...she's the provacateur according to Bill. I'm so confused...
Hi Jeter, if you read the account of the question and answer session it will answer the why question for you. She was asked a question about his love life and she answered truthfully based on her character development. She explained he was gay and told about his bad experience and how it effected him. That's all there was to it.
Thanks LostLogic, I went back & read it.
I haven't read any of the books, but did see the first movie. I didn't think I'd like it, but my wife asked me to watch it with her, & I have to admit it was pretty good.
Even though she was asked about Dumbledore, I'm not sure that Rowling needed to share the sexual background about a character she'd created with the world, but I don't see any great harm being done.
Uh, Dumbledore was in love with a male character. A man. So, in order to answer the question she actually did need to reveal that he was gay.
Clams these aren't real people.
So if she didn't reveal it, it wouldn't have really mattered.
Yes, I know they aren't real people, and you're missing my point. You wrote that you didn't understand why she had to explain the character's sexual orientation. Someone asked her a question about Dumbledore's love life, and in order to answer that question honestly, it was necessary to reveal that he was gay. This wasn't a fact that she just made up on the spot in order to cause controversy. It's clear now that she had written hm as a gay character from the start. Not that you care, but apparently Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelwald--another wizard--when the two were teenagers. In the books, Grindelwald later turns evil, and of course breaks Dumbledore's heart in the process.
So when someone asks if Dumbledore has fallen in love, how exactly is she supposed to answer? There actually was the "real" answer, even though we're talking about fictional characters. And that's the answer she gave.
Right. Not only had Dumbledore fallen in love, or at least had a big crush on someone, it affected Dumbledore's judgment such that he did not see the evil in the target of his affections. This led to the big showdown with you-know-who.
While not significant to the story-line (it would have only come up in the final explanations of why what when) it is the backstory that Rowling imagined for one of her best characters. And when asked about his lovelife, she answered truthfully: He was probably in love, and it happened to be with a man.
I guess Jeter's argument is that it doesn't matter because it's just fiction, but it obviously matters to the author and her readers. One could just as easily say that it "doesn't really matter" that Captain Ahab has a peg leg. But he does.
And speaking of Melville, I wonder if he was trying to push the gay agenda with Billy Budd. I'd love to dig up O'Reilly's high school book report on that one.
Yeah, I thought this was supposed to only be about Hillary.
J2, I think MMFA is trying to help KO(D) set a new record. Has he ever awarded one person all three (Worse, Worser, Worst) at one time? This may be the time!!!!!
Dumbledore's gayness would not have made a single bit of difference to the books--and that's the point.
His being gay would not have affected his wisdom or his character, or his strength. That's the message. And it's the worst possible message for those who would make homosexuality a madness, a disease, or a sin.
Bully for her.
Wanna know the truth? All that stuff you said goes against stereotypes. The right wing loonies are upset because Dumbledore wasn't presented as a pedorast. To them that is their concept of "reality" if a gay man mentored boys. To them it would be impossible for a gay man to be around boys without trying to seduce them and turn them gay. That's why they're upset and offended...they think the concept of even a benign gay person, let alone an admirable one, is not reality.
Yep. And not only that, but it also highlights the similarities between gays and straights.
"His being gay would not have affected his wisdom or his character, or his strength."
His being gay didn't. His falling in love, did. Rowling supposes that his love for this other character might have blinded him to some of the bad things in the other character's nature.
Been there, done that. And day time talk shows make a living off that all too common plot point.
Marv, you're hitting too close to home... <sniff>
Look, man, I knew she was a crack whore but I really thought my love would change her... ;>)
You hang in there, big fella. And let us know when you'll be on Springer.
Thanks, Marv... <snif> I love you, man. ;>)
IT'S FICTION!!!!!
Who will Bill go after next, Burt & Ernie? Two guys living together for how many years? What is with these right wing nut jobs?
Pearlene they've already gone after them:
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/gaymuppet.asp
Jeter, I just don't get it. What happened to the time you read books, watched TV and movies for enjoyment. You used that time to escape into whatever the book or movie was about. I only watched one of the Harry Potter movies but I really enjoyed it.
Reality check, gay people have been around longer than I've been alive. To pretend otherwise is to simply lie to yourself. Gay people are demanding their equal rights which is long overdue. Gay people are unwilling to hide because being who they are makes some uncomfortable. Get over it and grow up. You are an adult try to act like one. You should, as an adult, have the ability to explain what being gay is to your children. If you have raised your children to treat everyone the way you wish to be treated, it's really not that hard. If you can't do that maybe you should have waited until you were more mature to have children. That's MO.
Exactly!
We are missing out on a lot of freedoms for what reason?
People don't want to have to talk to their sh*tty kids.
They don't know the difference between reality and fantasy. If you ever worked with the mentally ill you would see this all the time.
If J. K. Rowling wanted to create a "gay" wizard (!) at any point in the "plot development" of her Potter series, it would have been a straightforward matter, a "writerly" consideration, both to her craft and to her readers.
I loathe O'Reilly, he is an impertinent bore, a media personality in search of a cult following -- but I have to agree with him on this one: "provocateur"...pure political stunt on Rowling's part; revelation of a fictional character's nonexistent sexual orientation amounts to nothing more than adroit manipulation of public sentiment, controversial or otherwise.
At the very least, it suggests she doesn't actually understand her own creation.
It suggests she doesn't understand her own creation? Are you saying you know her characters better than she does?
"[C]omedian Dennis Miller?" I thought a comedian was someone funny or humorous. Dennis Miller is neither.
It's like how they call former Presidents "President". It's honorific. Miller used to be funny. Now he's just desperate.
When I watched the first seasons of his HBO show, his writing staff was huge. I recognized some of the names from local comedy clubs (such as David Feldman.) I wonder if they still write for him.
wasn't mr. o'reilly "dufus, the 8th dwarf" in a previous life, working for disney? i heard that somewhere.
i could be wrong, but i think ms. rowlings primary motivation is to sell books. anything beyond that is pretty much speculation.
Oh please, don't even get Billo started on the 7 dwarves!
Think of just how pathetic O'Reilly is for reasons in addition to his obvious homophobia. He takes an author's answer to a reader's question about the background motivations of a character--an author he does not know answering a question about books he has never read (although he knows without reading them that they are "dopey")--and he turns it into her promoting a gay agenda, and being a provocateur (whatever the heck that is supposed to signify). And he completely ignores the point that her readers were shocked, which of course shows that she was not trying to provoke anyone since she did not even write anything in the books that showed Dumbledore was gay. So he completely makes up a "controversy" that does not exist at all, and casts aspersions on an author's motivations that obviously are not accurate based on one answer to one question. And O'Reilly is the same clown that will say that this site takes him out of context and "smears him" when this site repeats what he says at length, without adding editorial comment like calling him a provocateur. This man is a complete fool, and a hypocrite. It is shocking that he is able to maintain any audience at all.
"Think of just how pathetic O'Reilly is for reasons in addition to his obvious homophobia. He takes an author's answer to a reader's question about the background motivations of a character--an author he does not know answering a question about books he has never read (although he knows without reading them that they are "dopey")--and he turns it into her promoting a gay agenda, and being a provocateur (whatever the heck that is supposed to signify)."
First off, BO is making a point about the author having an agenda to promote homosexuality to her books intended audience: Kids. Whether BO is a homophobe, I could really care less, and if he is, he has a right to be. I for one, am not, and I could really care less as to somoones sexual orientation - unless they are trying to use the new liberal lingo "Pedosexual" to gain social acceptance, but thats another topic.
Not all right wingers are homophobic or anti gay. I, for one, am cathlolic - perhaps i dont believe in gay marriage or gay people adopting kids - I do however belive they have a right to their own sexual preference. Many say it hurts society, I believe if anything, it only hurts themselves.
So in short, even being a right winger, BO may just be trying to make something bigger than it is. But I still think Rowling was out of line making comments like that when much of her intended audience are children who are influenced by this type of talk.
So you think O'Reilly "has the right to be" homophobic, but gays shouldn't have a right to adopt or marry? And of course you see Rowling's gesture as one of corruption instead of tolerance. I think we see where you're coming from.
ummm sir...from your statements you are definitely a homophobe.
'...the new liberal lingo "Pedosexual" ' (Mr. Rushsucker)
God, I must be a "liberal", because I use "pedosexual" at least 10 times a day.In between lionizing phony soldiers.
Just kidding, I've never heard the term, but if "ped" is from the Latin for "foot", are you talking about Dick Morris?
If Rowling is "out of line" since what she writes is read by children, doesn't BO also write children's books? BO, who not only sexually harassed a woman and was forced to pay over $1 million in an out-of-court settlement, but it was revealed in court that he achieved an orgasm using a vibrator while harassing the woman. Is a gay fictional character really more detrimental to children than the ravings of a sanctimonious deviant (and one of the top preachers of the rightwing lifestyle), who uses a femnine sexual devices to achieve an orgasm while harassing people? If it's a choice between the 2 as writers/teachers for children, I think most sentient beings would choose JK Rowlings "morality".
Not all right wingers are homophobic or anti gay. I, for one, am cathlolic - perhaps i dont believe in gay marriage or gay people adopting kids - I do however belive they have a right to their own sexual preference. Many say it hurts society, I believe if anything, it only hurts themselves.
Look, just because you use your religion to decide that gay people are inferior and not welcome to the same rights under the law as everyone else doesn't absolve you of homophobia. What you describe is indeed homophobia.
Hey, like you said, it's your right to be homophobic. Just don't kid yourself about it. You are.
Someone help me please. This Dumble(D) guy, who does he play for? The Red Sox? I didn't see his name in the lineup.
she actually said she always imagine him as gay....... talk about from one mouth to the other..
Please people let's get a grip. They are fictional characters, created to promote the creators particular agenda and storyline. We spend a lot of time discussing them and they are not real. Not real. They are made up.So leave Blly O and Miller alone and let's wait for the next the installment from Murdoch of "Are they Gay lovers masquerading as TV personalities to hide their fondness for falafels, loofahs and pink?"Let Dumbledore live his life as free gay man. OK?
I think we're witnessing a heightened sense of repulsive behavior from conservatives toward homosexuality because of the repulsive and high-profile conservatives who've been outed the last couple of years. They aren't repulsive in their homosexuality, but for the double-standard/double-lives they live.
The surviving Republicans who are left to defend conservative principals have to make it appear as though they are not part of the now-mainstream Republican penchant for being gay.
Jesus! An airport bathroom stall is truly disgusting even for heteros!
Why the author said this I will never know, but saying this after the seris is finished seems a bit silly. It would be like George Lucas comign out and saying Darth Vader was gay. If you want a particular cause I think there might be a better way to do instead of an after thought.
Had you bothered to read the first two pages of posts, you'd have learned why she said she thinks of Dumbledore a gay.
I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this has already been covered but: The Right in America has been condemning these books ever since they first gained popularity and almost everything they've said has been completely farsicle.
Now I've read them. (And I first got interested in them only once the Christians started griping about them. So how that for effective combating they're 'evil influece'?) Their's no "demonolgy." There's no "witchcraft" (either in the classic Judeo-Christian sense, nor in a modern Wiccahn sense.) There's really no objectionable material at all - even the violence (magic duels mostly) and life/death stuff (death of a charecter) is treated with respect, and in a way which respects the reader's (of any age) intelligence. (But then - Conservative Christians tend to like their material presented in a way which does insult the intellingce of the average reader so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised...)
And I can clearly say that there's no "pro-gay" agenda going on here. There's no mention of homosexuality (or sexuality in general, beyond a high-school dance) at all, in any of the books. This is simply something that she felt motivated the charecter. A reader would not have any reason to suspect it (and thus no little kids will be asking their parents "What does 'gay' mean?") simply by reading the books. (And come on - I had a sense of whay 'gay' meant by the time I was 8 yeras old. (Oh yeah, but then they do like keeping objective informationf ro us and their kids as well, so again...)
Bottom line: By and large, Conservative Christians in this country HATE anything that isn't OVERTLY and LITERALLY pro-christian fundalmetlaist. (I've even had a few tell me thay won't let their kids read C.S.Lewis for cryin' out loud! That's how much they HATE metaphor! No wonder they can't get their heads around the parallels betweens GENESIS and EVOLUTION!) And they think anhything that doesn't outright villify something like homosexuality must be some kind of dengerous plan or conspiray to make everybody gay. (Black or white world remember: Either everyone will become strait, or everyone will become gay! Wouldn't want to be of the "wrong side" now would you?)
The various contrversies about Harry Poatter are all non-issues. But Cons. Christains can't stand that any book other than the bible might have the nerve to try and give kids a sense of right-or-wrong, independantly of a personal relationship with JESUS. Especially if it might make them able to live peacefully side by side with homosexuals. (Or just reasonable people who don't subscribe to their ridiculous vodoo brand of Christianity.)
I have a feeling that most of these people would have HATED Jesus if they'd ever met him.
Yikes!! O'Reilly is a loon. Rowling is part of the gay agenda? She's from England for heaven's sake. Quentin Crisp country.
Can someone help me out with context, because I still don't know why she brought it up. Honestly, I wondered to myself the same thing. What does this have to do the Harry Potter franchise? If there were a reason to state that this "wizard" is gay then it wouldn't stand out. Many in the gay community say they shouldn't be judged by their sexual preference, because what they do in a bedroom doesn't define who they are. So if that is true, why take a children's book that has nothing to do with sex, to define a characters sexual preference? Just wondering.
So gay people should only be represented in books, tv, movies if there is a sexual context to put them in?
First off, she was asked "Had Dumbledore ever fallen in love?" by a fan, at a q-n-a session. So the statement was made as an answer to a direct question. (And let's face it - "No." would have resulted in "Why?" So as an answer, the context was appropriate.) As for the story - In the last book there was a Wizard who turned evil (this is in past, like in the 1940's) and Dumbledore had to take him down. He was hesitant about doing it, and delayed for several years because he had at one point been a follower of this Wizard. Some of the other characters assumed that Dumbledore had a lust for power, and that was why he was hanging around this Wizard. That doesn't really fit the character entirely however. The reason was that he had fallen in love with this individual, and although he felt betrayed when he went bad, his feelings for him impeded his better judgment. Now those "feelings" are not expressed explicitly in the text, so again it's reasonable for an author to explain what a character’s motivations were, if asked by a reader/fan, even if it was not critical to state them explicitly in the story.
And I am all for tolerance, but if the franchise had dealt with this issue since the first book it would've, in my opinion, been received differently. She just dropped her newest one and I'm sure she doesn't need any Coulter-like sensationalism to sell it, so I just wonder how was that relevant. Is he the only gay character? Are we going to find out who is the bi-sexual in future books. I know O'Reilly is blowing this, like he does everything else, out of proportion, but the relevance of the wizards sexual preference was lost on me.
p.s. It's not a big deal. If you think it is, grow up.
August: I think that you are missing a little bit of the point here when you ask why Rowling is revealing this. I am not a creative person, but it seems to me that to a creative writer of fiction, the characters become life-like, with their own histories and personalities, which is what motivates them to do and say what the author has them doing and saying. Apparently, Ms. Rowlling envisisoned some of Dumbledore's actions as being motivated by his sexuality. This was her reality when she wrote about Dumbledore, even though she did not feel the necessity to hit readers over the head with it by making it explicit. When she was asked a question about his love life, it was a direct question about what was motivating Dumbledore. Since she had already thought of him as gay, the only way to sensibly answer the question was to point this out. Should she have lied about how she thought of the character? This was an interesting moment between an author, a writer, and a fictional character, who by this time had his own "reality." Your suggestion that she should have said something different not only would have been dishonest, but would have discredited the entire creative process.
I'm with you to an extent, but I think "Coulter-like sensationalism" is a little bit much, no? It's not like she issues a press release. She just answered a fan's question. And was somewhat hesitant to do it.
She went as far as to say that "if she knew how well everyone would react, that she would have revealed it years ago." So she was sensitive to how it would be recieved. She didn't talk about it before, so as not to let a point that was otherwise not central to the plot be a destraction for people reading (and enjoying) the last few books.
It was both a good business and artistic decision tonot play it up then, and she wouldn't have even mentioned it now, except that she was asked.
Why does everyone always forget that point?
"And I am all for tolerance, but ..." - August Heat.
Thank you, but no thank you. Tolerance, IMHO, is not good enough. It's sad that we have to boil it down to being 'tolerant'. As a gay man, I don't want anyone to 'tolerate' the fact that I love someone who is also a male. I accept that heterosexuals can have lasting, loving relationships. So, why can't you accept me for who I am? Acceptance of who people are is the only way to get around this issue. Tolerance gets us nowhere.
Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but I'm sick of seeing this whole 'tolerance' BS. It flies in the face of equality and smacks of condescension. I shouldn't have to be like you to be treated equally.
I appreciate that. I really didn't know the context. And no, gay people should not only be represented in media through sex. However, whoever said Gippeto and Pinnochio were heterosexual? How bout Bugs Bunny. He kisses Elmer Fudd and Yosemite all the time. I'm just saying, are we really about to start assigning sexual preference to imaginary characters?
"We" did not assign anything. The author did in this instance because it's relevant to how she wants to tell her story. You're the one who is choosing to extrapolate this out to Bugs Bunny and Pinnochio for some odd reason.
Furthermore, if you ask most young people today, at least in my area of the country, homosexualism is not as big a deal as many of these folks on the right would like the world to believe it is. It's amazing how mean children can be to their peers and yet are able to look past differences at times and show how much more tolerant they are than adults.
Little tip: See the "Reply to this post" link? It helps the flow of the conversation to click on that when you want to respond to what someone said.
Homosexualism?
As a homosexual, I take offense to that. ;)
Seriously though, I've never heard this word. Perhaps you meant "homosexuality." If not, could you please explain the meaning of 'homosexualism'? Thanks.
20 years of radio talk show hosts' lies on audiotape!
If ever there was a need for the Fairness Doctrine-my 3 hour audiotape is EXHIBIT #1 !
Lies that mediamatters.org missed:
medical lies; consumer product lies; lies "refuting" the toxicity of certain consumer products; intentional mis-quotes of governemnt officials.....
I invite members of the press and the US Congress to hear these tapes.
Michael Corman
misterfact@yahoo.com
RJC, seriously relax. I was asking a question. I'm not trying to be combative and sorry if I'm not as tolerant as you would like me to be. I was just saying, Warner Bros./Disney didn't see fit to start saying this guy is gay this guy isn't, this guy is heterosexual, this character isn't. It's silly to me. That doesn't mean I'm attacking homosexuals.
Do you really think Bugs Bunny has a "backstory"? Do you think that his past has any impact on his character?
I think we can distinguish between different types of fiction here. Atticus Finch and Woody Woodpecker are not the same.
OK, I'll relax. I was just trying to understand where you are coming from. Your writing is coming across as contradictory to me and I like to solve puzzles.
There's an assumption in most media that people are hetero. (I"m almost certain I've seen cartoons of Bugs' eyes bugging out at a hot female bunny.)
Those characters weren't explicitly written as straight. Dumbledore wasn't explicitly written to be gay. So what's the problem?
Bringing up 40+ year old Pinnochio and Bugs Bunny (cartoons) and comparing them with modern day literature is a stretch. Those cartoons were created during a time different from what we live in today. It's not an apples to apples comparision. I grew up watching Warner Brothers cartoons. Looking back upon them, I realize they were more violent than funny. It's interesting that such violence is/was intended for children, now and today.
Furthermore, I take exception to the assertion that the Harry Potter series is aimed at children. While children will find interest in such literature, it's also geared toward adults - as witnessed by the adults posting here who've had the chance to read the books and/or see the movies. If I had children, I would much rather see them READING any of the books in the Harry Potter series than WATCHING violent cartoons on television. Just my two cents.
I think Rowling would say she wrote her books for kids. It's that she speaks to kids so respectfully, without patronizing, that the books are readable by anyone. It's part of what made her books so popular not only with adults but with the kids themselves.
You may differentiate, but I have Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter being in the same category. Fantasy. Can you learn lessons from them. Yeah. You can also learn lessons from watching O'Reilly - how to be insesnsitive and intolerant and blame others when called out about said ignorance. I'm not doing that, I just don't want to deal with every aspect of our lives being sexualized. Is that too much to ask? Like I stated earlier, I didn't know the relevance. Nice Guy Eddie from Reservoir Dogs helped me and I appreciated it. Now it makes sense. And no, Bugs doesn't have a back story, but my point was he is a male bunny kissing another male. I used to wonder about that as a kid but it never dawned on me that Bugs was gay because the cartoon was funny as hell and I liked it. Again it shouldn't be a big deal that the character is gay, I just didn't understand what her reasoning was. But I'm all caught up now.
Just because one man kisses another doesn't make him gay. If anything, those old Bugs Bunny cartoons promoted beastiality. I know I've not kissed (nor been kissed) by a rabbit, a rooster, a tweety bird, a mouse or speedy Gonzalez. ;)
Why is it that when homophobes see two people of the same gender show affection (especially something as benign as a kiss or a hug), suddenly their sexuality is called into question? I think we may know the answer: conservative Americans have issues with sexuality, namely their own.
You keep accusing Rowling of bringing sex into the equation, but she was talking about love. Dumbledore didn't have sex with Grindelwald; he fell in love with him. There are thousands of children's book that portray men and women in love with each other. Did those authors "sexualize" their stories? Cinderella and Prince Charming doesn't bother you, but Dumbledore does?
When will Bill-O question the relationship of the Lone Ranger (a masked man) and Tonto(dressed in a provacative outfit)? Bill has every right to question these things and the world has every right to bash the idiot for just being an idiot. One can respect his viewpoints but then they become idiots. And I apologize to all the real idiots out there. Next week, Bill-O will probably debunk the authors' own characterization and say that (D)umbledorf had an illegitimate child named Tweddle Dum, proving once and for all that (D)umbledorf was not gay because Bill-O thinks that gay people can't have children. Bill-O, don't write any more childrens books. Please.
Was anyone really surprised by the 'outing?' Does it really matter? Dumbledore's still MY hero. Sheesh!
What? Dumbledore blew it! He didn't trust Harry with the facts at virtually any stage of the game! He USED Harry!
Maybe I need to re-read the last book, but I was really disappointed in Dumbledore.
I'm most offended by his descirtion of these as "dopey books."
Compared to the drivel that this jack-hole spews out on air and in print J.K. Rowling is Shakespeare. (Of course Bill-O would probably dismiss Willie-shakes as a liberal.)
Millions of copies sold, every best-seller record broken, but they're dopey. He's never even read them, but they're dopey. Well Bill... I've actually listened to your show, and you know what? It sucks. Calling your show "dopey" would be an insult to finctional dwarves. It just plain sucks.
You make a good point. We have a few regular posters here who try to prove that Bill-O is "correct" because he is the highest rated cable news program in his time slot.
Rowling has probably reached ten times as many people as Bill-O will ever reach. So she's probably far more correct, by that logic.
Marv, I'll bet O'Lielly's numbers are that high because people want to see what outrageous statement he makes each day.
There can't be that many people that think he's correct...
There's definitely something to that argument.
This is by far the best post I've read today (no offense intended toward those who've also posted). I agree wholeheartedly. Kudos!
I don't get this. He runs a social commentary show and if he feels this topic is worth mentioning that is his business. In none of the transcripts provided does he insult homosexuals. He seems more confused about it than anything.
He does raise a good point, what was the point? I have heard no one suggest that Dumbledore was gay. Why drop that bomb on people who never even thought it? Why not write his character as gay?
Huh???
"Write him as gay?" I'm not sure I know what you mean, and I don't want to take your statement out of context, but are yousaying that he can't be gay unless he's flaming?
I'm not going to write it again, and many others have already explained this, but go back a page and read my previous comments if you really want to know.
Short version:
His sexuality was not central to the plot, but it did motivate some of the (bad) choices that he'd made in his life. (Again, choices of a non-sexual nature.) Previously why he made those choices was subject to interpretation. Now... not as open. Love blinded his judgement.
Yes but love exist in a non-sexual manner as well. I love my sister but don't want to have sex with her. Love can motivate his actions and explain them as well without having to say he was gay. If it was that important as to illustrate why he made certain decisions then his sexuality should have been written into the story. TO spring it out now is no better than George Lucas adding effects into Star Wars because it is the way he always wanted it.
"Why not write his character as gay?"
Well, apparently she did. So what you're really asking is, why didn't she write his character to fit your prejudicial idea of what gay is.
No what I am saying is why didn't she say he was gay in the story. I am not saying he needed to be flaming but if it was what motivated his actions and what would have given the reader a better understanding of who the character is, why wasn't it written into the story?
It's backstory. You don't have to write it into the story, it's just the basis for the character.
Besides, can you imagine the uproar if she had done that? It wasn't necessary, so we really would have heard about her promoting homosexuality.
EXACTLY, it isn't necessary to say he is gay. There is no other explanation for her revelation than pure publicity or an agenda.
She was asked a question about his background, and she answered it. If she really had some agenda, she could have made it central to the story, and exposed it in the last book.
What's the idea, that one of the best-selling authors in the world needs extra publicity? Or that she was just waiting for someone to ask the right question so she could push an agenda?
Seems sort of ridiculous, doesn't it? Why not just accept the obvious and reasonable explanation for it, instead of insisting on there being something nefarious about it?
That is the only reasonable explanation. If he was gay and it was important then he should have been told he was gay in the book. Otherwise there is no reason at all to for the author to say it.
I see no way to accept that explanation as reasonable until you answer the questions. Why does she need extra publicity? If she was that interested in pushing an agenda, why did she wait until someone asked a question instead of making it a part of the book? Your glossing over of that only shows that the explanation is not reasonable.
"Otherwise there is no reason at all to for the author to say it."
She was answering a question. What part of that concept is difficult for you to understand? Should she have lied so that intolerant homophobes wouldn't get upset?
More snow from mediamattered..
The O'Rye Cracker Show replaces the Ann Kulture Show..
Meanwhile collaborating terrorists have successfully attacked California with national emergency scale arson.
Yeah, the Fox morning jerks pulled out an article from 3 years ago that had no confirmation...That Fox news..now that's ENTERTAINMENT.
Just keep everyone in fear. Terrorism by arson. That is a good one. Why not just blowup a bus?
"O'REILLY: I don't know. She made that reply at New York's Carnegie Hall, and the audience was stunned into silence by the revelation."
Actually IIRC there was applause, but heaven forbid O'Reilly would use actual facts.
writingindependence "Meanwhile collaborating terrorists have successfully attacked California with national emergency scale arson."
Normal people with morals and a conscience would feel guilty when uttering such a complete lie. How about you?