More Active Posts
Front Page
The gay wizard
 |
 157 Comments |
From the AP: “Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.”
What does this even mean? I’m not a hateful person, and I think Believers have a lot to learn about engaging this issue, but seriously? I thought the books were over. What’s the significance of “outing” someone who doesn’t even exist? If characters only exist in words, and no words ever indicated (in books, where characters “exist”) that this imaginary wizard was gay, then what’s the point? Now, I understand that Rowling could have used this in her writing to help guide her writing of the character, but sharing it in such a fashion seems showy, pointed, precious, something. And stupid. Like George Lucas coming out and saying, “Well, Darth Vader was against the war in Iraq.”
I think it’s fair to say that homosexuality has been grandstanding in our culture for several decades now, and this is just one more example. A hundred years ago, Rowling would have been saying - after the books were done - that Harry Potter himself was very much for women’s suffrage. Ridiculous.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: complete-stupidity, culture, fiction, Harry-Potter, homosexuality, JK-Rowling, literature |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
I think it’s fair to say that homosexuality has been grandstanding in our culture for several decades now
What does that even mean?
Harison, I know what it means.
Great question. Homosexuality is practiced in a small portion of the population, relatively speaking, but its prevalence in culture, art, media, etc. - i.e., where its practice is singled out for various reasons by those who are its advocates - has the very purposeful effect, I think, of making it look more prominent, practiced, common, pedestrian, etc., than in fact it is. This is what I call grandstanding.
And stupid. Like George Lucas coming out and saying, “Well, Darth Vader was against the war in Iraq.”
*****Amen! I whole-heartedly agree. I was appalled. As a Christian who didn’t mind reading the books, I have to say this just left a horrible bad taste in my mouth. In a book that doesn’t really deal with sexuality or such issues at all beyond some mild teen-age “kissing”, I have to wonder WHY I need to know — after the fact and with no bearing whatsoever on the story — that a *fantasy* wizard was “gay” is beyond me.
It is stupid. It alienates those who liked the books. It totally ruins the Dumbledore character for me. It is something I plan to keep from my kids.
Why oh why when I read a children’s book would I even CARE what someone sexual proclivities are?? Why would the author need to reveal this.
And, your analogies were perfect. It is like saying, “Gee, and Luke Skywalker is going to vote Republican this year.” Who would care and how does it relate??
Eh, I see it more as her trying to add to the Harry Potter universe, a la Tolkien. She’s already said she’s not going to write any more books in the series, but that doesn’t mean she can’t flesh out the universe for her fans.
Stephen,
WHY do we need to know the sexual inclinations of a CHILDREN’S book character?
Do you also want to know that Winnie-the-Pooh was “bisexual” or that Nancy Drew likes “hot and heavy” swinger action?
I mean, really. Why?
Dumbledore is a nice fatherly figure. I never once thought about him as a sexual being…nor would I expect to in a children’s fantasy book. The fact that he wasn’t married did not surprise me, since NONE of the Hogwart’s teachers had a husband, wife, or significant other. (That, I did wonder a bit about, but only why they never seemed to have any family…not in reference to their sexuality.)
For shame on Jo.
What’s the significance of “outing” someone who doesn’t even exist?
A literary character doesn’t have to be a “someone” to exist. All such a character needs is a bit of ink on paper, or sound and lightwaves, and imagination. If you must, think the characters are aspects of the writer and readers. The significance of discovery is the sustaining and extension of imagination.
Wasnt the actor Ian McKellan (RIP) gay?
Yes, the actor is gay, but he is not the actor playing Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies. He played Gandolf in the “Lord of the Rings.”
TRS, it’s not a question of “needing” to know, it’s a matter of filling out the universe with facts that one does not need to know. Very few people need to know that water is H2O, or that Mt. Everest is the highest point on the planet, but they know anyway. Surely telling fans how one constructed a character is a useful thing, so that upon re-reading one can better understand where the character is coming from and why. Rowling didn’t politicize it in her book, but elaborated on how she conceived a character’s love life in response to a question.
I don’t think it is “pointless” to out Dumbledore. It just is what it happen to be, (something Harrison is going to resent) a political action.
It’s not politics I really care for, but the intention is not horrible. She is saying (at least after the fact) that the world she created is not free of homosexuality. And that’s important to do when creating fantasy worlds people are often going to hold as being more desirable than our own.
You all wont like it because you dont like gays. That’s expected and no one is thinking that you are going to clap your hands at liberal politics.
But it is important to remember that it is a very small thing! It’s not something I’m likely to think about when re-reading the books though.
Though it does color his legendary fight with Grendewald a little differently. Gay domestic violence is a serious issue!
Grandstanding? Definitely!
The BBC article points to a dispute with the screenwriter of one of the motion pictures.
Backstory is important, but this revelation confuses the issue. In the “hero’s journey” of the books, Dumbledore is the mentor. He is respected and admired. He is revered. Some would go as far to say he is the “God the Father” character in the books.
The debate over “Christians reading Potter” has raged for years. I guess we now have more fuel for the fire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm
Backstory is important, and I like it as much as anyone else.
But, this is also *children’s* fiction. It is a fantasy world. I don’t need to know that someone sleeps with *anyone* else.
It was bound to fuel the fire of (largely unwarranted IMO) dislike of these books amongst some Christians.
And, since Dumbledore does have a likely Christian symbolic meaning (as Rowling now admits), it almost seems to be somewhat blasphemous to portray him with a sexual side.
Honestly, I was perfectly fine seeing him as a largely “sexless” character, and I think it was really rude of J.K. Rowling to throw this in my face.
Next, I’ll find out that Charlie Brown had a foot fetish, and Lucy likes leather. sigh
Except that she didn’t throw it in anyone’s face — she answered a question. Like you said, nothing she wrote gave you any indication of such, so she can hardly be accused of trying to push a political agenda on children here. Further, she didn’t say anything about anyone sleeping with anyone else, she’s simply stating his orientation — did you object to her including the fact that Ron likes girls as being rude?
“or that Nancy Drew likes “hot and heavy” swinger action?”
Don’t stop.
No, Ron liking girls is the normal, natural, most common state of affairs, and is not controversial.
Why would anyone be surprised at anything J.K. Rowling wrote? This woman loves the world of those things which are against the Bible, is it any wonder that she decides to write in ‘homosexuality’ of her little wizard character?
Anything to get as many children as possible, interested in evil, and now homosexuality -
What do Believers expect? The Bible is clear about end times, but yet everyone acts surprised when they see all these things coming upon our world -
So you’re happy to read about a land where boy wizards run through walls to take secret trains to their magical school where they learn to cast spells and fly on broomsticks… but are offended when a character isn’t “normal, natural, [and] most common”?
Sometimes I read worldmagblog and I think, “Nobody could make this place up.”
The last two paragraphs of the article “J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character” ……. tell us just what ROWLING is up to, why would an adult would want children to “question authority” ? So we can be sure that kids should be tolerant of sin, and question authority?
rdean (1): What does [”homosexuality has been grandstanding in our culture for several decades now”] even mean?
Frank: Perhaps it could have been worded better. Maybe something like
“For several decades now, homosexuals in our culture have been grandstanding — outrageous and ostentatious — flaunting their presence and proclivities in an attempt to attain the broadest possible social acceptance.”
(But I guess some people need you to draw them a line …)
IOW, rdean, more and more homosexuals openly seek to normalize their (ahem) “practices.”
Homosexuals want to make life better down the line for your children, grandchildren, nieces & nephews. For real.
So you’re happy to read about a land where boy wizards run through walls to take secret trains to their magical school where they learn to cast spells and fly on broomsticks… but are offended when a character isn’t “normal, natural, [and] most common”?
******Yes. The first things you described are fantasy, on level with “Snow White” or “Sleeping Beauty” and her fairy godmothers. It’s called imagination.
What J.K. Rowling has now done is bring in the real world into her fantasy world. Homosexuality of a character is not only a deviant behavior made to seem “normal” by making one of the main heroes a practitioner, but, since it deals with sexuality…it is also a topic not appropriate for children’s fantasy.
Again, I don’t want to think about ANY children’s fantasy characters having sex of ANY kind.
I saw this and thought, “great, something else to explain to the kids which has no bearing on anything.” I was disappointed in Ms. Rowling–there would have been less controversial ways to answer the question.
“Like George Lucas coming out and saying, ‘Well, Darth Vader was against the war in Iraq.’”
Or perhaps like George Lucas coming out and saying that C3P0 were gay as if we didn’t already know that.
While I do not support or advocate homosexuality in any way, Mrs. Rowling’s answer seems to be a non-sequitur.
But TRS, Ron liking girls is just as sexual as Dumbledore liking boys, so I don’t see how you can complain. There’s absolutely no discussion of Dumbledore having sex, or any physical act whatsoever.
yaawwwnnnn
Perhaps the phrase “Friends of Dumbledore” will now replace “Friends of Dorothy” as the hip new gay catchphrase.
#20 - No one is forcing you to stay are they?
#28
Non sequiturs are very inappropriate sexual behaviors for adults and children, straight and gay people as well.
Even animals should not.
In fact, this post should be banned and burned.
#32
Then release the handcuffs and ankle restraint as well, please. Thank you.
ROLFL
Kim,
Did you just burp out loud?
Dumbledore is gay?!
Well that was the idea at this year’s National Forensic League tournament in Wichita — the winner in Humorous Interpretation did a selection from Harry Potter, complete with, yes, a Dumbledore pederast. I’m quite sure that this was not what Ms Rowling had in mind, still we laughed ourselves sick at the performance.
(Here I think we have the problem with movies — they take away our ability to imagine alternative readings of a text. Happily, that is where performance art such as that in forensics comes in.)
“[Rowling] was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds “true love.”
“Dumbledore is gay,” the author responded to gasps and applause.
While I do not support or advocate homosexuality in any way, Mrs. Rowling’s answer seems to be a non-sequitur.”
Indeed it does. She was asked a “yes” or “no” question and chose to make a comment about a character’s sexual orientation. It was completely unnecessary.
At any rate, there is nothing ever in the novels to indicate anything about Dumbledore’s sexuality. It does add another dimension to his duel with Grindelwald, but adds no colour to anything else his character does. She ought to have just let it be.
#27: CP30…that made me laugh, Jon Rowe.
#3: Homosexuality is practiced in a small portion of the population, relatively speaking, but its prevalence in culture, art, media, etc.
Oh yea, I get it. Peanuts envy. 3% or so of the population though out history and yet, they are represented in art, music, dance, literature, business, architecture, science, military, theater and academia. And not just represented, for the most part, leading. And not just leading, but all through history. I bet anyone who reads this site can name ten gays right off the top from these fields and would have to think a while to name one evangelical. Isn’t that a hoot? No wonder the evangelicals are mad. They are so jealous, they can’t stand it. They know the only possible explanation is that God graced the gays.
Who are the evangelicals you CAN think of? Haggard, Swaggart, Baker, Roberts, Falwell, Tilton? Yep, and the reason you can name them? Because they have all been involved in SCANDAL. Hold it hold it hold it. I had to stop for a minute. I couldn’t type cuz I was laughing.
So, what do the evangelicals do? Cain much? They do everything they can to discredit the gays. All though history. I guess adversity does make you grow stronger. Gays are still represented in all those fields (except military in this country). And, they are still discredited by the evangelicals. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
They say the gays have equal rights but thinking people know better (see military, hate crimes, job discrimination).
Honestly, I don’t see things changing much. Evangelicals will still hate the gays who will continue to excel in spite of the conservatives who will say that people pay too much attention to the gays who will get the attention because they excel. It’s a vicious circle with the greater portion of vicious coming from the evangelicals.
No Travis I meant I was rolling on the floor laughing at your friend of dumbledore quip but my fingers weren’t working properly.
#34 - Only you have the key.
I’m not really interested in what J.K. Rowling had to say about Dumbledore. It will go down as one more battle in the so-called “culture war”.
I’m more interested in Harrison’s comment that homosexuality has been “grandstanding” in our culture. His explanation of the term leaves much to be desired. It shows a lack of understanding about what it means to be gay.
It’s comments like that which reinforce the stereotype that conservative Christians having little empathy or understanding toward gays.
Sigh
RDean
William Wilberforce, John Newton, Thomas Freylinhausan, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe….
We can play the name game all day - oh, and most of those so-called gay figures you are appealing to are questionable at best.
Like I said above, I truly believe it’s jealously. I turn on the TV and Will and Grace is on. I turn the channel to the Arts and they show Rudolf Nureyev dancing. I change to the religious channel and they are showing the Sistine Chappel and talking about the King James Bible. I go to the military channel and they are talking about the tactics of Alexander the Great and how they are still being taught in military schools. I go to the tech channel and they talk about the father of computer language, Alan Turing. I go to MTV and they talk about the hundreds of millions David Geffen is giving to the UCLA medical center. So I watch MTV and a special of Elton John comes on. I turn to the sports channel and they show NFL football and NBA basketball players coming out. I turn on the political channel and Barney Frank is talking.
I turn on the kids channel and they are talking about Hans Christian Andersen. I go to TV Land and they are showing Richard Chamberlain as Dr. Kildare so I go to the news channel and there is Anderson Cooper.
I used to carry around a Susan B. Anthony half dollar. Don’t forget Ellen and Rosie.
Come on. Anyone coming to this country would think it’s half gay.
Now, let’s talk about all of the things the evangelicals have done. Well, there’s, um, wait, hold on, it’s coming to me. Oh, they tried to add supernatural to science. We all know that. They tried to add discrimination to the constitution. They’re still working on that one. They have been involved in a dozen scandals (Haggard, Swaggart, Baker, there the newest one coming up with Oral Roberts Jr., I can even add an “etc.”)
They have led us to war in Iraq through Bush where they have created a radical Islamic country that has uprooted hundreds of thousands of Christians after they made “Islam” their “national religion”.
I don’t know what to say. I believe all the hate is jealousy. It’s like the ugly kid who can’t stop talking about the pretty one because the jealously is so thick. Who gave the gays all this talent if not God? If I were an evangelical, that’s the question I would be asking.
#44: We can play the name game all day
So I do a search on these people you listed. The only one I ever heard of was Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Many people don’t understand the enormous impact this book had on the US during times of slavery. A very important author So that’s one. But the others? I couldn’t even find them all and they are all from more than 150 years ago.
William Wilberforce, John Newton, Thomas Freylinhausan, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe….
In 1743 John Newton ’s father had planned for him to take up a position as a slave master at a sugar plantation in Jamaica but on his way he was pressed into naval service, and became a midshipman aboard the HMS Harwich. Having attempted to desert, Newton was recaptured, put in irons, and reduced to the rank of a common seaman.
Obviously a different kind of fame. Not real sure what the point on that one was.
Garrison was influenced by the ideas of Susan Anthony, which is a hoot because she was a lesbian.
Obviously it’s not a good idea to play the name game with famous evangelicals. You wouldn’t win. The most famous ones could be called “infamous” and to some, “scam artists”.
RDEAN -
You certainly keep a log on watching TV. Is this what you do all day, everyday? You seem to know every single program that’s on. Do you go out much, or do you just flip the channels back and forth?
As far as Rudolf Nureyev, he’s dead. He died January 1993, 14 years ago, he hasn’t danced since - He died of AIDS -
#47: As far as Rudolf Nureyev, he’s dead. He died January 1993, 14 years ago, he hasn’t danced since - He died of AIDS -
The Arts channel plays everyone from Beverly Sills to Mario Lanza to Nureyev on Saturday mornings. I’m a channel surfer, flip flip flip. Can’t stop. Probably the only thing I watch from beginning to end is a Bulls game. Never could sit through an entire episode of “Friends”.
Speaking of AIDS. I remember when the gay community asked Ronald Reagon to find out why so many gay men were dying of cancer and he didn’t do anything because they were gay. He was president at the time. Didn’t want to get involved. Considering the how much the gays have given to the country, makes you wonder how many good people we have lost. You can see it in a movie called, “And the Band Played On”.
I’m sure good old Ronald was glad we were able to “get rid” of so many gays. Unfortunately, disease has a terrible habit of spreading. The majority of cases in Africa aren’t gays. But you knew that.
By fighting the handing out of condoms, I wonder how many of those deaths world wide could be laid at the feet of the Christians? Millions maybe? Something to think about.
“Who are the evangelicals you CAN think of? Haggard, Swaggart, Baker, Roberts, Falwell, Tilton?”
Um. No. That’s not who I would think of. Even off the top of my head, the list might start out more like: Bach, Mendelssohn, Handel, Faraday, Kepler, Boyle, Leibniz, Linnaeus, Kelvin, van Leeuwenhoek, Arthur Schawlow (co-inventor of the laser), Francis Collins, CE Koop, Rembrandt, Rubens, Durer, Vermeer, Makoto Fujimura, Francis Shaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Abraham Kuyper, CS Lewis, CK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, etc, etc. And that’s going heavy on the scientists on a suspicion that there might be some people you recognize there, and doesn’t even begin to touch the list of Christians working in pop culture, or those in athletics.
Your premise fails. Maybe it’s because of an exposition of intellectual and cultural history that’s almost entirely informed by cable tv. Or maybe it’s because of a shallow understanding of what “evangelical” means. No worry. A proper education can cure both {:~)
By the way, changing your name from donato to rdean didn’t give this sort of drivel any new traction.
Take (more) care,
SG
Abstinence is the best first choice. Ronald Reagan was not responsible for homosexuals getting aids, nor did he ignore it -
Many scientists have worked on the HIV/AIDS projects. Science still hasn’t found cures for some of the deadliest cancers, that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying, it just means there is no cure yet - AIDS/HIV is no different - Just because this disease surfaced in 1980-81 doesn’t mean there would be a cure FIRST THING IN THE MORNING - Most scientists knew that homosexual sex was transmitting the disease, so it would make ONLY COMMON SENSE, to ABSTAIN, but that’s not what the homosexual community was willing to do. As far as condoms, the homosexuals could have gone to ANY drug store and purchased them. Even now, with all the public knowledge being broadcast, televised, literature, etc., it still is a problem - they can still go to a drug store and buy condoms IF THEY CHOOSE - it’s that CHOOSING part that becomes a problem -
Since the homosexual community knows TODAY how the disease is spread, why do they continue to contract HIV/AIDS?
#49: Bach, Mendelssohn, Handel, Faraday, Kepler, Boyle, Leibniz, Linnaeus, Kelvin, van Leeuwenhoek, Arthur Schawlow (co-inventor of the laser), Francis Collins, CE Koop, Rembrandt, Rubens, Durer, Vermeer, Makoto Fujimura, Francis Shaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Abraham Kuyper, CS Lewis, CK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers
So I get an encyclopedia and starts going through the names you list but I only get half way and then stop. A couple of things, Collins believes in evolution. Half the ones I looked at were from the 16 or 17 hundreds. Come on. You almost had to say you were a Christian just so you wouldn’t get killed and half those were never married. What does that tell you? Or if they were married, they had no kids. Very unusual. Marriage of convenience? Hmmm. And lastly, Alan M. Turing – Founder of computer science trumps Arthur Schawlow (co-inventor of the laser). I maintain that the evangelicals are jealous of the gays. So so jealous.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Czar Alexander I
Alexander the Great
Horatio Alger Jr.
Susan B. Anthony
Hans Christian Andersen
James Baldwin
Lionel Bart
Leonard Bernstein
William S. Burroughs
Queen Christina of Sweden
Noël Coward
James Dean
George Gershwin
Hadrian
Leonardo da Vinci
Vaslav Fomitsj Nijinsky
Cole Porter
Maurice Ravel
John Schlesinger
Stephen Sondheim
Tchaikovsky
Alan M. Turing – Founder of computer science
Oscar Wilde
Tennessee Williams
Franco Zeffirelli
And on
And on
And on
#50: Most scientists knew that homosexual sex was transmitting the disease, so it would make ONLY COMMON SENSE
You know I love to comment, but first you have to go find out what you are talking about so what I say makes sense. I saw a little kid once just yelling at a wall and not saying anything. Just yelling and yelling. He didn’t care that he wasn’t making sense. He just wanted to yell. It’s ok. It was actually entertaining. Then.
There are no real Born Again Believers who are jealous of homosexuals living in sin - No one would be jealous of a lifestyle which has led homosexuals down a path to death, through HIV/AIDS a lifestyle unrepentant of sin - You are misguided -
Hell is going to be full of talented unrepentant sinners, so what was the point of their life?
Victoria post 53,
I believe a more correct statement might be:
I believe that “Hell is going to be full of talented unrepentant sinners, so what was the point of their life?”
Unless you have objective evidence to sustain your point, I suggest your point is your belief and only your belief.
Okay…so what a fictional character in a story of fantasy once the series is over (the last volume penned, published and read) is revealed by the author to have been gay all along…what silliness. Such revelation by the author is meant to sock and spin and PR, not to add to the debate or discussion on homosexuality. Sounds like the author was reacting to the positive reviews given by some Christians on the Lewis-like ending of her fantasy story about Harry Potter. Now she couldn’t have that so she now finds a way for the Christian community to despise here again–good for sales perhaps and whatever is etched in her soul concerning the Christian faith.
Victoria, you have never been rude to me personally, so I try not to be rude to you personally.
In a discussion, about my Jewish ancestry, some one questioned how they could know I was really “Jewish.” I mentioned my real last name. There are about half a dozen famous people I can think of with that name, including an architect, a song writer, and so on.
You have a “thing” about Jews and how they have been persecuted. You warned me to be very careful about revealing it. I thought that kind of silly, but very sweet of you.
I also once told you about my cousin who went to Taiwan and learned Chinese and became a millionaire, who also became a Christian, and left much of her money to help deaf children in Taiwan because her daughter had been born deaf and was fixed with Taiwan’s first cochlear implant.
You were very moved by my story about my Christian cousin.
Everything I say on wmb (besides the silly jokes and satires, which are pretty obviously jokes, I think) is true.
But I will say, to you, Victoria, in the same way you told me to be careful, that you should be very careful about believing what people tell you. You have, I suspect, a great tendency to believe what people tell you if it sounds good to you, and I suspect you could be hurt very badly (if that hasn’t happened to you already). Be careful.
I read the first Potter book because my daughter had it and I was curious. I didn’t think it was very good. But as the series went on, I noticed it getting much better. Rowling seemed to be developing and maturing as a writer.
I haven’t read the last two or three books yet.
I wondered about the pressure she felt as she became enormously successful. With each new book, she was like a trapese artist walking across Niagra Falls again and again. She had all the money any sensible person could want. She had married again, as far as I know, quite happily, and had another child. As she completed the series was she motivated by the joy of creating art and of pleasing millions of fans, by the fear of failing and disappointing, by the feeling of having to live up to enormous responsibilities?
Never having been in anything like similar circumstances, I have no idea.
It does seem possible to me that with the project done, she succumbed to the temptation to say something that was the equivalent of Here, let me stick this thumb in your eye…”
Probably not. I get weird ideas some times.
By the way, evangelical folks, there are homosexual people in our society. They consider themselves real people, and they get weary of hearing stuff such as “God wants you to remain celibate all your life.”
Also, another one of my weird ideas is that any group that has been oppressed or picked on or whatever, eventually becomes as bad or worse than the group that picked on them as their ultimate revenge. So American Indians have fireworks stands and cigarette stands on their reservations, and own casinos on and off their reservations, and have drunks in every skid road. Blacks sell drugs on street corners often to whites, and form gangs such as bloods and crips, and get white kids to listen to rap music, and so on.
Homosexuals grandstand and decorate your homes and design your clothes and so on. Now they’re coming out as wizards.
It’s interesting what people notice and focus on.
http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/171-jk-rowling
Why are there more gays then evangelical making successful careers in the arts. In my experience evangelical and Christian artists in general have a few disadvantages that most artists do not.
First of all family; evangelicals are more likely to have a spouse and kids that they not only need to support but to spend time with. Artists are expected to starve for a while. You can’t do that if you have kids to feed. We are taught that it is God, Family then Career. It is hard to compete with people who have it the other way around.
Ethics, evangelicals are severely limited in how far they can go for success. They couldn’t snap up a great opportunity to work in an R rated movie or a TV show that promoted a sinful lifestyle. They couldn’t throw in a lot sensationalist sex and violence to get a publisher’s attention. And they couldn’t join in the usual dirty dealings and back biting that goes on behind the scenes.
Nepotism, liberals are fully entrenched in the media. They will and do assist and promote like-minded friends and colleagues. Anyone who has gone to the movie, tried to watch TV or read a best sellers lately can attest to the fact that it is not the most talented who make it.
And of course our own attitude. Face it we don’t encourage our children to pursue high-risk professions like the arts. Kids who do are often labeled lazy, sissy and unrealistic.
Bottom line is most of them eventually decided is not worth giving up having a family, defying our consciences and working against our personal conviction for fleeting fame.
There are several reasons why gays go into areas like the arts:
1. You go where you are most comfortable and welcome. Face it, gays have not been exactly welcome in a lot of other professions.
2. Gays are, on average, more willing to indulge their “creative” side. I think it’s because we have the “ying” and the “yang”.
2. Stereotyping. In reality, gays are represented in every field and profession. It’s just that people’s homophobia prevents them from acknowledging it.
It’s hard to be gay when you are gay. That’s why there are so many jolly gay people. No, that’s fat people. I’m getting my stereotypes mixed up. It’s hard to be different when you’re a stereotype.
I’m going to get up and go on the treadmill.
When did this “outing” of historical figures start? I dunno. Seems as though if anyone is described as a “lifelong bachelor” you start to wonder. E.g., the man who brought the first Anglo settlers into what we now call Texas was a lifelong bachelor, Stephen F Austin.
I can’t believe folks in the 19th century could not know if someone was gay back then.
Our former congresswoman from Austin, Barbara Jordan, was rumored to be gay for years but this wasnt confirmed until her life-partner did a post mortem outing.
I wonder if it’s adversity that help builds character? 3 to 5% of the population? That’s like 3 out of 100 or 6 out of 200 or 12 out of 400.
And yet, there is this huge contribution.
Look at it this way, Chritianity grew and grew rugged with it’s members were being maligned. No matter the adversity brought on by the Romans, Christianity flourished and couldn’t be stopped.
Only, it’s been the Christians maligning for the last two thousand years. Not just the gays, only they have just saved their most vicious tactics for the gays. You would think that people like the Christians, considering their history and what they bave been through wouldn’t be doing it to someone else. Especially not their own children. Does that make any sense?
“Half the ones I looked at were from the 16 or 17 hundreds. Come on. You almost had to say you were a Christian just so you wouldn’t get killed…”
Utterly ahistorical, but hysterical in more than one sense.
“…and half those were never married. What does that tell you?”
That they were never married. Concluding something beyond that without supportive evidence is irresponsible conjecture.
After reading worldmagblog for a while, I have been considering persecuting Christians again. For one thing, as RDEAN points out, Wonder Adversity build strong bodies eight ways, not to mention strong characters.
However, after reading worldmagblog for a while, I’ve observed that evangelical Christians BYOP–Bring Their Own Persecution. Just add a little Main Stream Media, puff a little, sprinkle on a little evangelical atheism, mix in a little homosexual agenda, and presto, a souffle of persecution pops up. Eat it while it’s fresh and hot though. Stale persecution doesn’t keep that well.
Let‘s also look at non-artistic contributions for a moment. How many hospitals, missions, shelters and orphanages were founded by gays? Can you name a gay Mother Teresa or Mother Hale? Who founded The Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries International? Say you’re a staving kid in a third world country, who would you rather see coming, Franklin Graham or Tennessee Williams?
I can see that gays tend to be attracted to occupations that require a self-centered intensity, but how many do you find in places where you have to bury yourself for the sake of others. You may not be able to name the evangelical who founded the hospital you’ve just been taken to, but I bet you’re glad they were there.
Random - 56
You don’t know me at all if you believe for an instant that:
My career would never have happened had I been so naïve, and gullible as you seem to think I am. Suffice it to say, you aren’t paying attention, or you purposely underestimate me, which I’m beginning to believe is the case -
Again, you failed to understand, (perhaps on purpose) what I was saying weeks ago in that post, and many other posts. I have studied WW2 not to mention the fact that I have lived among the Jews, many are my friends, its not a matter of having a “thing” about them. Jesus was a Jew, many people aren’t aware of that, or IF they are, they don’t understand it -
#64: Concluding something beyond that without supportive evidence is irresponsible conjecture.
Considering the undeniable intense pressure Christians put on each other to get married and have as many children as possible and passing on the “family name” in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds. Not to mention someone like Handel writing “Messiah”, you can bet church leaders probably gave him a pointed discourse on the importance of appearances. Believe it. However, dashing and single noblemen supported Handel, in his “younger days”. Now, while I’m not coming right out and saying he was gay, but the fact that he was a giant in the arts and considering his personal history and strange and strained marriage between the gays and the Christians, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
And it’s important to point out the odd relationship between the gays and the Christians. In this country, the vast majority of gays come from Christian families who obviously never raised their children to be gay. Christian family values means disowning their own children thereby splitting up the very families they claim to want to protect? The Christians say the solution is for the gays to stop being gay. Basically, they are saying to stop existing. Obviously unrealistic.
By hating the gays, this gives the Christians visibility for their supposed war for morals. But by using their own children as scapegoats, it is the Christians that demonstrate a lack of morals thereby highlighting a self-destructive tenancy similar to the Christian “War on Science”. It’s science that allows Christians to live in the type of safety and comfort they weren’t able to enjoy at the conception of their religion.
Basically, the Christians vilify their best and brightest and reject what protects them from the evils of the world. I’m almost mystified until I think about the poor judgement shown by the current crop of Christian leaders. Starting with Haggard and the list I’ve given before. When their leaders demonstrate such poor judgement, is it any wonder that Christians are following the wrong path?
Now if Rowling had just revealed that Dumbledore was Jewish, Victoria would have been right on board.
America the Beautiful written by Katharine Lee Bates.
#66: How many hospitals, missions, shelters and orphanages were founded by gays?
Sorry, considering the very small number of gays in the world compared to the heterosexual population, and how it takes a huge number of people and large resources to build hospitals and missions and orphanages the question seems kind of dumb. However, there have been shelters built in large cities where there are larger numbers of gays to help children that have been disowned and thrown out by their loving Christian families. But you knew that.
Science, the arts, fields where a single person can make an impact are where gays excel. What other options do they have?
“the fact that he was a giant in the arts and considering his personal history and strange and strained marriage between the gays and the Christians, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
In other words, you’re blowing smoke heated up by uninformed innuendo. Intellectually irresponsible conjecture.
Consider taking much more care,
SG
#71: Intellectually irresponsible conjecture.
“I have no time for anything but music” was Handel’s reply to George II’s question about his “love of women.” But the composer’s sovereign was neither the first nor the only of Handel’s contemporary admirers and associates to wonder about his sexuality. Scarcely twenty pages into his narrative, Handel’s first biographer, Christopher Mainwaring, feels obliged to address the same question: “In the sequel of his life he refused the highest favors from the fairest of the sex, only because he would not be confined or cramped by particular attachments.”
Gary C. Thomas
“Was George Frideric Handel Gay?”
Uhhh, yea, right. Confined, hmmm.
I’m sure Haggard’s followers were equally upset when they found out their hero kneeled at more than just the alter of God. They were so upset they sniffed, but they sniffed because of tears.
RDEAN: Christians are still being persecuted for their beliefs, including in the United States as well as on this blog.
This made me laugh outloud–Serious George wrote: “Your premise fails. Maybe it’s because of an exposition of intellectual and cultural history that’s almost entirely informed by cable tv. Or maybe it’s because of a shallow understanding of what “evangelical” means. No worry. A proper education can cure both {:~)”
WELL SAID.
#73: Christians are still being persecuted for their beliefs, including in the United States as well as on this blog.
It sounds good until you start examining it. The majority of Americans are Christian. They have boldly declared this a “Christian” country in an attempt to tyrannize the minority. They want to criminals some of their own children for existing. They want to push their religious beliefs onto the children of non-believers in public schools. They want to add mysticism and belief in the occult to science.
All of a sudden, it seems less of an attack on Christians than the attempt to protect America FROM the Christians. I totally get why you don’t see it that way and that makes it even worse.
“half those were never married. What does that tell you?”
I really find that inference rude and frankly, offensive. As a single person past the age that many young people marry or have a live-in boyfriend, I find it incredibly narrow-minded that my single, celibate state implies that I am a lesbian. I am very bothered by this recent tendency to look back through the lives of those in the past and determine that they were homosexual if they didn’t marry or run around indulging in fornication. It indicates a lack of thoughtfulness or logic, in my opinion
Harrison’s complaint about “grandstanding” (#3) is a classic accusation employed by authoritarian regimes of both the left and the right.
DRAMATURGE
Lot’s of people never marry, that doesn’t mean anything, except they didn’t marry - We know a lot of people who have never married, and they aren’t homosexual - Many missionaries never marry -
I would ignore those who make statements such as you have posted - It is a “lack of thoughtfulness or logic” but its most likely done to put those who haven’t married on the defensive. Those needing attention for the homosexual community will say almost ANYTHING -
In the case of those who lived hundreds of years ago, who stayed single, …….. to ‘pigeon hole’ them into a mold, (especially if they are talented) so as to raise the homosexual flag, over and over again, is obtuse -
#75: I am very bothered by this recent tendency to look back through the lives of those in the past and determine that they were homosexual if they didn’t marry or run around indulging in fornication.
I seems that you give marriage and “indulging in fornication” equal relevance. Sexual love between a married couple is a beautiful thing. It’s difficult for me to refer to it as “fornication”.
As I said in post #68: “Considering the undeniable intense pressure Christians put on each other to get married and have as many children as possible and passing on the “family name” in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds.”
It was not unusual for marriages to be arranged in those days. Sometimes the arrangements were made when the couples were still “children”. That’s how important getting married was. These days, fewer than half of adults are getting married and more than half of those are getting divorced. No one today assumes anyone is gay because they don’t get married. Also, many gays in the past, as well as today got married to protect themselves from Christian hate and prejudice. That is unfortunate and certainly not the reason to get married. Number one reason to get married, love, number two reason, children. Are there any other reasons that matter?
However, in the past, when people didn’t get married, with the pressure from the church and family as well as such “helpers” as arranged marriage, it’s only natural that one would wonder if a normal, healthy adult were gay.
Many of you are perhaps not aware that Dumbledore DID have a boyfriend - Gellert Grindelwald.
Read for yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/20/harry.potter.ap/index.html
I think this whole idea actually came about from fans speculating on the internet, and JR went with it. Seems reasonable to me and not at all worthy of controvery. The protestations here reflect an all-too-typical evangelical bigotry.
Side note, from “How Homosexual Was Tchaikovsky?”, an article by Petr Beckmann at http://www.fortfreedom.org/other/tchaik.htm (my ital):
I lost aa great deal of respect for Rowling with this blunder. It was inappropriate and serves no purpose (other than promoting the gay agenda to those too young to properly deal with it).
I’ve read three modern biographies of Tchaikowsky and was a competitor in the 1982 Tchaikowsky competition in Moscow. The evidence is MUCH greater than implied in the above quote. But I see no point in dredging it up here.
Recall that the author of the above, Petr Beckmann, is a Czech electrical engineer (not a music historian) that also challenged Einstein’s theory of relativity. Well that makes him wrong at least twice that I can see!
It was inappropriate and serves no purpose (other than promoting the gay agenda to those too young to properly deal with it).
You guys are so paranoid. There’s no promoting or grandstanding here. It’s just an incidental take on a fictional character that has no controversial significance in the UK, but that is apparently considered inflammatory to some in the homophobic US of A.
The best thing to do with these transparent publicity stunts is to ignore them with the contempt they d-
*curses*
#67 Victoria,
That is true, I don’t know you at all. It is very difficult to get to know a person through an electronic bulletin board, and a very religious person communicating with a strongly irreligious person is not a very promising platform.
I am very aware of what happened to Jews in Germany and throughout history, often by people who believed themselves to be Christians. I was brought up on stories about these events.
As I use my last name in my work and my life everyday, in a country that has some anti-antisemitism but not much and is today mostly worried about Muslims, your comment to me in the context of this medium struck me as strange.
By and large, I talk to people here in a way that corresponds to how they talk to me. If they think I am out of line in how I communicate, I usually adjust. Night Hawk and I recently made some adjustments.
I’m not sure how and if I should adjust in how I talk with you.
This thread produces many examples of why I call myself a radical agnostic. In fact, I feel myself becoming more radicalized by the minute. I will either throw a — never mind, or go to the gym and push some Nautilus machines around.
Harry Potter is a story. Rowling is a writer with a lot of imagination and a lot of work ethic who made a lot of money. The world contains gay people as it did in the past and will in the future. Praying about it will not make much difference, but beam those prayers up, Scotty.
Hell is going to be full of talented unrepentant sinners, so what was the point of their life?
Clearly to improve the quality of life in Hell! I take as a corollary to your claim that Heaven will be filled with untalented self-righteous do-gooders. Methinks maybe you have these two places mixed up.
#80: But until then, it is also time for the influential parts of the musical establishment to stop pretending that Tchaikovsky’s alleged homosexuality is established, accepted and uncontroversial, to realize that the burden of proof is on those who claim the unusual, and to desist from their self-serving smears of a great musician.
Tchaikovsky:
“Only now, especially after the story of my marriage, have I finally begun to understand that there is nothing more fruitless than not wanting to be that which I am by nature.”
letter to his brother, February, 1878
Pretty convincing.
When the “Pathetique” symphony was first played, Tchaikovsky named it “Tragique”. Tchaikovsky referred to it as the symphony of his life. When the first review came out, a reviewer said it should have been called, “Pathetique”, thus, Tchaikovsky changed the name. One of the funniest stories I have ever read.
The only reason being called gay is a smear is because of the hate promoted by the Christians and no other reason. Perhaps Tchaikovsky’s symphony “Pathetique” should be dedicated to “Christian Morals”?
spinoz post 87,
Mark Twain is reputed to have said that he would like heaven for the climate and hell for the company.
Really, the so-called Christians on this site would be torture. I would rather spend eternity with musicians and artists. At least I would be entertained. The Christians on this site, at the very least seem really scary. I bet Jesus or God, if they existed would also want the artists and musicians. The last people he would want would be grovelers. Who likes those?
Well you all have finally pushed me over the edge. I see no other choice than to choose to become gay so that my daughter will rebel and be straight. Listen to yourself folks. Many alcoholics come from teetotaling families. Many alcoholics raise children who never touch alcohol. Both my parents smoked like chimneys. Every time in my life that I have thought I would look good smoking a cigarette I have spent the next day praying for death to set me free. I personally don’t see the point in making Dumbledore gay but hey he’s Rowlings character not mine. I have the last book have had it since the night it came out. I still haven’t made myself read it because I have been too busy hanging out here judging my neighbors. Personally I hope that I can make myself not post on any more gay threads. They just wear me out.
Many Christain families will accept a dangerous alcoholic who will steal from them to buy booze or threaten to commit physical violence before accepting a gay son or daughter who may becomes a doctor or a respected member of the community.
Odd.
Would anyone with a gay son or daughter really wish the kid wasn’t gay? That would boil down to wishing they had a different son or daughter. Just a thought.