Out of the Closet

[Shuckins]

Sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, open or implied, has no place in children's literature.  Millions of other people's children have just been subjected to Rowling's views on an extremely controversial subject.  She had no right to do that.

Rowling is entitled to her opinion on homosexuality.  Yet, she hid her views while the books were being sold for no other reason than that she knew that they would hurt sales.  Only now has she had the courage to speak up.

I bought her books as gifts for my sons on their birthdays and at Christmas.  I've read them myself, and thought they were excellent entertainment.  Having read articles about Rowling's anti-religion bias, I was grateful that she kept her personal views out of her writing.  

Now that she has taken the money of many who do not approve, she has suddenly developed a backbone.

I don't like being deceived.  So, peace on her.  I wil not buy "The Deathly Hallows."  I would demand that the money I spent on the other six books be returned, if there were any hope at all of wresting it from her hands.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by storch

I could have gotten away with it too, they don't have cameras... yet.

snip

sob, they probably didn't even know I was present as I was about thirty yards away.  

snip

I don't understand why some gay people need to push there homosexuality into the public's face as it were.

You're not making your case.

[DrDea]

Daddy.....Whats it mean that dumbledorfus is gay?
 Well son it means the stork doesnt come to his house.The pork does.
Is that wrong daddy?
Its an abomination in Gawds eyes son.It very wrong.
Daddy...can we watch your lesbian porn again?
Sure son..Thats what Gawd intended for us to do.
Gosh daddy..I wanna be a hipocrit just like you one day.
You will be son...you will be.

  Bah...I to far from perfect to even try to tell someone else how to live. And DONT give me the Bible says crap...It also says thou shalt not judge.Stupid book.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
You projecting a motive to get repugnant over seems more than a subtle hint.

Well, she is a writer and these characters did originate in her mind. Though I might argue the actors in the movies took some ownership of the characters. Anyhow, since these characters came from her imagination, everything they are is what she would have them be. That the homosexuality of a central character was not addressed until she was done with the story raises suspicion in my mind as to her motive for announcing this. If it wasn't significant enough to reveal/address during the story, why mention it, ever? This is not a rhetorical question btw.

[eagl]

drdea,

I assume your jab was intended for me...

What in my post even mentions "god" or any other judgmental crap?  You seem to be the one leaping to judgement.

My post pointed out the logical questions an unbiased child might ask, and the most honest answers a father might give.

Why do you hate that kind of honesty, and immediately jump to the conclusion that saying babies come from actions between men and women, not men and other men, must be bible-thumping bigotry?

Even the most die-hard atheist has to admit (if they're honest) that the survival of the human species relies on heterosexuality remaining the predominant preference.  God doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.  Gay folk don't pass on their genetic code, unless they pay a hell of a lot of money to utilize modern medical techniques to ensure their genetic code is passed to the next generation.  Where is "god" in that?  It sounds like a hefty dose of logic in the face of an awful lot of emotional nonsense.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, open or implied, has no place in children's literature.  Millions of other people's children have just been subjected to Rowling's views on an extremely controversial subject.  She had no right to do that.

Rowling is entitled to her opinion on homosexuality.  Yet, she hid her views while the books were being sold for no other reason than that she knew that they would hurt sales.  Only now has she had the courage to speak up.

I bought her books as gifts for my sons on their birthdays and at Christmas.  I've read them myself, and thought they were excellent entertainment.  Having read articles about Rowling's anti-religion bias, I was grateful that she kept her personal views out of her writing.  

Now that she has taken the money of many who do not approve, she has suddenly developed a backbone.

I don't like being deceived.  So, "peace on her."(?)  I wil not buy "The Deathly Hallows."  I would demand that the money I spent on the other six books be returned, if there were any hope at all of wresting it from her hands.

It wasn't in the literature, as you've just stated. She brought it up as an after-the-fact revelation to fans at a gathering. She was surprised at the degree of the positive reaction. You seem to be projecting the deception into this so you can feel resentful and angry as much as AKIron seems to be. Good luck with your suit, though you seem to acknowledge that would be futile.

[DrDea]

No I wasnt jabbing anyone...Similar format but nothing aimed at you.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
It wasn't in the literature, as you've just stated. She brought it up as an after-the-fact revelation to fans at a gathering. She was surprised at the degree of the positive reaction. You seem to be projecting the deception into this so you can feel resentful and angry as much as AKIron seems to be. Good luck with your suit, though you seem to acknowledge that would be futile.

Now who's guilty of projection? I was quite honest when I told you I don't give a flip about her stories. I do find people who push PC to be repugnant but I'm neither angry nor resentful.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
If it wasn't significant enough to reveal/address during the story, why mention it, ever? This is not a rhetorical question btw.

Why not? What's more "deceptive?" Revealing her bio of the character, when asked by a fan/fans (who suspected such) .... or not? Too much cowbell.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by eagl
My post pointed out the logical questions an unbiased child might ask, and the most honest answers a father might give.

Now I gotta admit, I haven't read all the books, either. Which one was the one where Dumbledore got knocked up?

[JB73]

Originally posted by eagl
Daddy, what does that mean, Dumbledore is gay?

Well son, you know from the birds and the bees book how your mommie and daddy made you, right?

Yes daddy.

Well, Dumbledore takes his ^$^^%$$ and instead of finding a woman to make a baby with, he finds another man and puts his %&#% in the other man's &$^&.

Why would he do that daddy? Doesn't that mean he can't make a baby?

Nobody knows why gay people do that son, nobody really knows for sure.

I'm glad you aren't gay daddy, because then I wouldn't be alive.

Me too son, me too.

for emphasis and to say eagl thank you for saying it better than I can.

[eagl]

Originally posted by DrDea
No I wasnt jabbing anyone...Similar format but nothing aimed at you.

Ok then  I apologize for pulling out my jumping to conclusions mat.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Now who's guilty of projection? I was quite honest when I told you I don't give a flip about her stories. I do find people who push PC to be repugnant but I'm neither angry nor resentful.

Neh, not projecting on my part. Unless you're really just feeling amused over the reactions this revelation seems to be "enticing."

I may well have attributed too much emotion to a definition, however:


Repugnant

Adjective

1. Offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels".

You find it offensive. You're still inventing reason to be.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
Why not? What's more "deceptive?" Revealing her bio of the character, when asked by a fan/fans (who suspected such) .... or not? Too much cowbell.

Why not is not an answer. Of course I know you can't answer for her but don't you at least wonder what her motive was for doing so? I think she may have been miffed at Christians for denouncing her books as enticement to witchcraft. Perhaps she was just looking to poke 'em in the eye again? Maybe she finds homosexuals to be offensive, who knows?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
Neh, not projecting on my part. Unless you're really just feeling amused over the reactions this revelation seems to be "enticing."

I may well have attributed too much emotion to a definition, however:


Repugnant

Adjective

1. Offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels".

You find it offensive. You're still inventing reason to be.

Offended is not the same as being angry or resentful. There you go projecting your own feelings again.



Ok, I see you recanted the angry and resentful attribution. I already admitted that I find people who push a PC agenda to be offensive. Is it really a stretch to see this as a PC ploy on her part? Perhaps it's not but I've already explained why I see no other plausible explanation.