I think this is sleazy of Rowling. It is EXACTLY what supposedly paranoid religious conservatives have been warning about since Book 1: that Rowling was setting kids and parents up, getting the kids hooked on her initially innocuous books, so that she could later on inject her liberal views. Philip Pullman, as much as I disagree with his ideas, at least had the guts to be open and up-front about his agenda. Rowling is an underhanded coward. If she wanted one of her most important characters (and the most important authority figure) to be gay, she should have done so and lived with the consequences. She can't use the excuse that they were children's books, because it isn't like the last few books were G-rated. She's like a politician who announces his gayness -- AFTER he retires from office. Oh, yeah, that shows real character and courage. NOT. Rowling has totally lost my respect.

Athena,

I was under the impression that Fudies weren't letting their children read the series because of the witchcraft. Just one more reason for them to hate the book - homosexuals AND witchcraft - If that doesn't speak to the series being a product of the devil I dunno what does. Hehehe

"I always thought Harry Potter was gay. Why can't Harry Potter be gay?"

Kacoo - that's what fanfic is for. ;)

Seriously... a lot of fans thought that Remus Lupin had TWO deep, dark secrets that he was hiding. One was that he was a werewolf, the other was that he was gay. However, JKR nixed that when she paired him up with Tonks. I'm pleased that she declared that Dumbledore, a much-loved mentor character, is gay. When I first read that, I heard the sounds of Fundie heads exploding. Good on ya, Jo!

This is dumb!!! Why is his sexuality even being brought up. All the other issues, like half-giants, closet warewolves etc., are fantasy examples of discrimination and tolerence. But Dumbydore being gay is unnecessary and I aint explaining that to my kids...its too early for that with them. Can we get black charecters in the book first. Dam!!!

Norrie,

Dude, it's like you criticized the Bible or something.....way to go ;)

I always thought Harry Potter was gay. Why can't Harry Potter be gay?

Ben Jones--

She wasn't making random speeches about it. Someone asked about Dumbledore's love life and she answered truthfully.

Norrie Hoyt--

Again, this was from a forum of fan questions. Not EVERYTHING was in the books, because there wasn't the room or necessity. The questions were all about details she knew about the plot and characters. What's your beef with specifically this character info? Also, if you followed any of this you'd know that JKR's planning on writing an "encyclopedia" companion, so it's info that very well could be written later.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the Quidditch and Magical Beasts books to be fair game or "criticism"? Are runespoor eggs used by dark wizards or is it up to me to take it or leave it?

Dumbledore is gay! Say it ain't so!

This entire thread reminds me of the Tinky-Winky triangle hat controversy. Or the Bert and Ernie two-puppets-living-together controversy.

Only in the fever swamp of the semi-functional right wing brain does any of this matter. But then those folks always seem to get right to the nub of whats really important - on Planet Dumbazz!

Wow, folks!

You're throwing grenade brickbats at me faster than I can throw them back!

SO:

Happy Toaster,

Once again, When JKR comments on her own writing or characters, she's acting as a literary critic, not an author. For an utterance to be that of an author, it has to be explicitly written in words in the text.

JKR's "pages of notes" are fodder for literary critics, not part of the author's books. Ditto for her interviews.

What JKR says may be gospel for her fans, but it's still not part of her books.

NMS,

I agree. Thank you.

FRED EVIL,

I'm not trying to control JKR's characters - I couldn't if I wanted to. I'm trying to suggest how a book should be read and what an author's role is in regard to her stories and characters.

Please quote anything I wrote that suggests I care about Dumbledore's sexuality one way or the other. I have no interest in that topic since it isn't manifested in the books.

If you're suggesting that I'm a homophobe, you should know that I'm one of the most outspoken proponents of gay rights and gay marriage in my state.

I'm also the second person (after one of my state's U.S. Senators) to be given my state ACLU's award for distinguished service in furthering civil liberties.

BEN JONES,

I've always thought it's unproductive to criticize people for doing things other than what you think is a more important thing for them to be doing. I'm on the author's side. She wrote an interesting essay.

Perhaps we should be doing Mother Teresa things rather than blogging, but that's not how the world is.

Hello everyone,

Well, I really set off a firestorm, didn't I? 'Twasn't my intention, I assure you.

There's something fascinating going on here that I haven't figured out yet. So many folks so up in arms over my attempt to say how I think a book should be read.

More angst here than in On Faith posts about burning people at the stake.

I will say that I've found this to be one of most interesting (and basically pleasant) discussions I've had in a year of posting in On Faith.

So the whole world's against me. O.K., I'm used to it. One bill of mine got 3 votes on the floor of our 150 member House of Representatives. In 1952, I was the only kid in my high school class to be for Adlai Stevenson. So this debate is almost nostalgic for me.

I don't want be more tedious than I already have been, but here are a few more thoughts and comments:

** If you guys are correct, all English departments should be shut down and all literary critics retired.

You have made literary criticism impossible. If what a book says and does can be authoritatively overruled by an ex post facto comment of the author, then there's no point in looking at the text and evaluating what's there.

Meri,

There are two universes: the book and the author's mind. It's fine to discuss either or both of them separately, but only confusion and inconclusiveness will result by trying to combine them into one entity.

In All Fairness,

Allegories are wonderful, but they have to be perceived as such by the mind of the reader.

If Melville had written "Dear reader, think of the whale as more/other than a just a whale" or "My whale is really Everyman's obsessive quest/goal", the story is ruined.

To enjoy an allegory you have to start by reading the story literally and agreeing with Freud that "Sometimes a whale is just a whale."

Likewise, if Orwell in a public forum had said "You know, those pigs are really just Communists", both his literal story and his allegory would have been ruined. It's the literal story plus the reader's mind that creates the wonderful experience of the allegory.

The author's saying something that indicates his work is an allegory converts a fine work of fiction into an uninteresting nonfiction essay.

KGirl2,

"Just because she didn't specifically mention Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the books doesn't mean he isn't gay. You're assuming that in the absence of some specific indication that he is gay, he must have been heterosexual. His sexuality was not mentioned at all."

No, I'm not assuming anything about his sexuality.
In fact, since his sexuality isn't mentioned at all, I don't think about his sexuality at all. It's simply not part of the story as written in the book.

"By the way, Norrie Hoyt, my last post was directed at you. I'm also a lawyer of long tenure and I don't agree that you can apply canons of contract interpretation (which are meant to eliminate the role of speculation and imagination) to literary criticism."

What I wrote did not limit in any way the role of speculation and imagination in LITERARY CRITICISM.

Literary critics are free to sepeculate about and imagine anything they want to about Dumbledore or any other character, or the author's story.

In citing the "four corners rule", I was saying that an author's ex post facto comment or speculation about one of his/her characters cannot be allowed to overrule the plain text of the book.

To do so makes literary criticism and speculation impossible because you can't rely on the text to write your criticism.

In saying she always thought of Dumbledore as gay, JKR is speaking as a literary critic, not an author.

To speak as an author, she would have had to have embodied that thought in the text.

By the way, KGirl2, you made me feel my age when you wrote "I'm also a lawyer of long tenure

In my law school class of 550 there were 27 women. Our property class set a "Ladies Day" two weeks ahead. This was the only day in the year when women would be called on, and they were given advance notice so they wouldn't be surprised or upset when they were called on.

*******************

Best wishes to you all.

We face war, pestilence, famine, and disease daily throughout the world, and the author chooses to pursue an irrelevant discussion regarding a fictional character's sexual preferences.

If this is the extent of the author's ability, she really needs to do something else with her time.

But then again, the author is an English major, which means that the phrase "Do you want fries with that?" will be a permanent staple in her vocabulary.

Norrie Hoyt, do you read a lot? Just because it isn't in the book explicitly, doesn't mean the symbolism isn't there. I suggest you go back and re-read the series, and begin to look for traces of homosexual behavior, and you may just find they ARE in there, even if not expressly written. After all, she can write a short story for publication, and suddenly, it IS in there. They're her characters, why you want any control over them is beyond me.

Either way, you seem hellbent on proving DD to be hetero, it makes one wonder why it's so important to you.

Being gay isn't a choice for people, they just are. Being ignorant on the other hand, is ENTIRELY a choice....

To Norrie's critics:

Forget the legal argument. Once any work of art (visual, literary, performance) is out there, it's open to interpretation. Of course the author/artist/creator's intention is important, but it's by no means the ONLY acceptable interpretation. No alternate universes here, please. Has anyone on this post seen a Shakespeare play? Has anyone heard a classical concert? The author's/composer's intent may color the performance, but different performers may interpret them completely differently. What did Rodin mean when he sculpted The Thinker? Who knows, but everyone from then on is entitled to their own opinions about it.

Now where this gets interesting is that HP is NOT confined to the four corners of the page. These books ARE being interpreted by screenwriters, actors and directors. Will the author's now-stated interpretation influence the upcoming movies in the series?

Norrie:

As a very big HP fan, I have to tell you that virtually all of fandom is against you. Maybe if you want to make this claim about... I don't know, Joyce's Ulysses, go for it (though it's still arguable and I have serious problems with that *theory* of literary criticism), but Rowling has pages and pages of notes about her characters, and with the exception of numerical arithmatic errors, fandom considers Rowling's interviews to be canon (unless it directly contradicts).

Do you not accept that James was independently wealthy? Or that Neville ends up as the Herbology professor? Because they weren't IN the books, but they fit right in with book-canon. If you read Deathly Hallows, it's makes complete sense to see Dumbledore as in love with his best friend.

So what Rowling says goes, sorry. Anything else is what we Potter-fans call "AU": alternate universe.

By the way, Norrie Hoyt, my last post was directed at you. I'm also a lawyer of long tenure and I don't agree that you can apply canons of contract interpretation (which are meant to eliminate the role of speculation and imagination) to literary criticism.

Just because she didn't specifically mention Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the books doesn't mean he isn't gay. You're assuming that in the absence of some specific indication that he is gay, he must have been heterosexual. His sexuality was not mentioned at all. Accordingly, he could have been straight, gay, bi, or any of a number of other modes of sexual identity. To assume he was straight by default is incredibly heterosexist.

If there had been something in the books definitively identifying him as heterosexual, then I'd be dubious about her characterizing him as gay after the fact. This is like the "red riding hood" example you gave - if the author describes the hood as red in the book, she can't really turn around and say she always thought of it as blue. But she didn't describe his sexuality explicitly in the books, so it's fair for her to supplement her description.

Norrie,

Point taken. Along those lines, what I was getting at is that by using a four-corner approach to literary assesment Moby Dick is JUST a whale, and the animals in Animal Farm are JUST pigs and sheep.

Orwell, for example, never SAYS that they are political ideologies.

So if I were to ask him (I know, I can't really), "Are the pigs actually Socialists", and he responds, "Yes", is it not true because it is not stated?

Is Melville's whale JUST a whale?

I mean those questions rhetorically of course. I'm not trying to give a pop quiz...HA

It seems to me that the point behind the Q&A session that Rowling attended was to answer questions about the series that may not have been entirely clear from the books. This is her creation, her world. If you want to use the bible analogy, it is more akin to the belief in the Trinity because God says so, and Dumbledore is gay because Rowling says so. She is Dumbledore's creator, and as such has exclusive right to all of his personal intricacies, whether they be written down or not. If she writes it down in a companion reference book to the series, does that suddenly make it more true? Sheesh.

In any case, I thought that the circumstances around this revelation were probably the best one could hope for. The question and accompanying answer weren't about sex or morality, but about love. Something I think we could all stand to practice with one another a bit more.

James Dobson also sucks dicks !!!!!!!!!

James Dobson also sucks dicks !!!!!!!!!

P.S.:

Of course JKR is free to think anything she wants to about any of her characters.

But her character has a real existence only in the book.

If I had written "Little Red Riding Hood", but in my own mind I always saw her hood as blue, does that mean she's really "Little Blue Riding Hood?"

If it's not in the book, it isn't.

P.S.:

Of course JKR is free to think anything she wants to about any of her characters.

But her character has a real existence only in the book.

If I had written "Little Red Riding Hood", but in my own mind I always saw her hood as blue, does that mean she's really "Little Blue Riding Hood?"

If it's not in the book, it isn't.

P.S.:

Of course JKR is free to think anything she wants to about any of her characters.

But her character has a real existence only in the book.

If I had written "Little Red Riding Hood", but in my own mind I always saw her hood as blue, does that mean she's really "Little Blue Riding Hood?"

If it's not in the book, it isn't.

In All Fairness,

Thank you for your very fast turn-around response to my post.

Cutting through the vastly excessive verbiage of my last post, here's what I'm saying:

Characters in a finished, published book exist only in the words of the book.

What anybody (including the author) says about such a finished character cannot amend or amplify the character's existence as it appears in the words of the book.

The character is frozen forever as he is made to appear in the words of the book (until the sequel appears).

In this case: no words in the book suggesting gayness = no gayness in the character.

Regards.

All Good Author do character profiles of their main characters in great detail, and many do them to some level for every character in the books. For a series of books, this is pretty vital.

Thus, it makes perfect sense for a character to be gay, and never have it mentioned at all, especially in a character book. For the vast majority of the Potter series, Dumbledore was a very old man, and a school teacher to boot, so his sexuality was extremely unlikely to come up. The only time it was likely to be hinted at, its seems that he may have well been homosexual. Again given the nature of the story, his sexuality wasn't important. It would have been out place indeed to go into his sexuality when discussing world conquest, or the murder(in effect) of his sister.

A lot of words to say, that if J.K Rowling says Dumbledore is/was gay, then the character is indeed gay, since his profile is hers alone to define.

Norrie posted:

"The book stands by itself and must be read as itself, without reference to the author's thoughts or feelings.

I imagine you've probably taken courses in literature or critical reading. If so, you'll recall that what an author set out to do, or what s/he thought s/he was doing or saying, may not correspond at all with what the work itself sets forth and says."

I beg to differ. In studying literature, the background, beliefs, and intent of the author have much to do with the completed novel. If an author does not succeed in getting a particular point across, they are either not good or the reader did not read it correctly.

What an author initally sets out to create, and ultimately creates may not be the same, but that is not determined by external assement.

In that sense, the finished work is what it is, but again, the feelings of the author are still valid.

Norrie further posted:

"Let's have reference to the legal profession's basic rule for construing documents: The Four Corners Rule. This means that what is actually written on paper within the four corners of the document is determinative of what the document means. The opinions of the parties as to what the document means has no standing at all in court, even though they authored the writing. The same rule applies to JKR and her writings."

I think this is an apples/oranges comparison. Legal assesment of a document has a different purpose than reading a novel. A legal assesment of a document is to be literal and detemine proof of something. A novel is art/entertainment.

A method actor may be so wrapped up in becoming a character that they know exactly how that character would sneeze or wipe their bum. This helps lend a three-dimensional quality to the performance. By this assesment, when an actor does an interview about their performance the insight they provide into the character is meaningless if it wasn't contained within the four corners of the screen.

JK fleshed out a three-dimensional character. In doing so she knows EVERYTHING about him, whether she put it on the page or not.

I would strongly disagree that her statement about the character she created is not relevant.

Just my two-cents worth.

TO MY FRIENDS, JULIA, DOTHERIGHT THING, and MCBRIDE:

Greetings to you and peace.

Let me quote from you:

**"And Norrie Hoyt, this is JKR's world and she gets to decide what's in it."

**"Since she wrote the books, JK ought to know whether she meant to portray the DD character as homosexually inclined. So her answer (assuming it is truthful) is THE answer."

**"um... the main difference here being that Rowling created Dumbledore as a fictional character and quite frankly, if she says he's gay - he's gay."

I'm afraid that you miapprehend the relationship between the author and a completed, published work.

The author is not the book, and vice versa.

The book stands by itself and must be read as itself, without reference to the author's thoughts or feelings.

I imagine you've probably taken courses in literature or critical reading. If so, you'll recall that what an author set out to do, or what s/he thought s/he was doing or saying, may not correspond at all with what the work itself sets forth and says.

Let's have reference to the legal profession's basic rule for construing documents: The Four Corners Rule. This means that what is actually written on paper within the four corners of the document is determinative of what the document means. The opinions of the parties as to what the document means has no standing at all in court, even though they authored the writing. The same rule applies to JKR and her writings.

Let me provide another example from my work as a state legislator and a lawyer. I authored a tax bill which was passed into law. A bunch of realtors sued to invalidate a tax assesment based on the law. They brought a group of legislators to court to testify as to a particular meaning of the words, which, if accepted, would mean they wouldn't have to pay tax.

The legislators were not allowed to testify as to the meaning of the words they had written - the court looked only to the words within the four corners of the document.

Yes, JKR could have written that that Dumbledore was gay, or created a scene that showed he was gay. But she didn't. So in the books he's not gay. What she thinks of her character's sexual orientation "has no standing in court" because the words of the books provide no evidence one way or the other.

The relationship of JKR (the author), and me (the reader) to her books is exactly the same. She and I can both say what we think of the characters and the story, but the words will speak for themselves, and be determinative.

Even though I'm retired and no longer being paid by the word, I do love to go on. Maybe I'll write a novel, with me as a character

If I do, and if it gets published, you and I will have the same equal standing to say what my me-character is all about.

Best to all of you.

Oh and here's another good comment from the same page:

What I don’t understand is why everyone’s like “oh this has nothing to do with the book, why would she say this, it doesn’t have a place in the book”. Well, JK never came out in the book with it, did she? No, look at the context to which she revealed this information about DUmbledore. Someone ASKED HER in a forum about whether or not Dumbledore had ever been in love. If she imagined a character she created as being gay, what was she supposed to do? Lie? Someone asked her if DD had ever been in love, and she answered. She didn’t have him banging dudes left and right in the book for Christ’s sake!

And for those of you who say “why does it matter, she’s being politically correct by adding it in, his sexuality should be kept behind locked doors”, no one seems to have been complaining when JK mentioned Dean and Ginny snogging, or Harry and Ginny, or Fleur and Bill, or Ron and Lavender. Should gay fans of the series start complaining and saying “ugh, why is she throwing heterosexuality in our faces! They should keep their sexuality behind locked doors! Ugh ”. No. Just like heterosexual behavior (kissing, dating between guys and girls) is normal, so is gay behavior (falling in love with your best friend at a young age, for example).

As for the notion that since Dumbledore is gay, he obviously molested Harry (I can’t even believe I have to address this ridiculous concept), I guess we should believe that because Snape was hetero, he molested Hermione. And because McGonagal was hetero, she molested Ron. Gay does not equal pedophile. Please stop equating the two, it’s ridiculous, you sound like a moron.

Seriously, everyone who is up in arms about this needs to get a grip. Gay people exist, they live, they love, they cry, they hurt, they protect, they teach. In this world AND JK’s world. Get over it.
Posted by Stefanie on October 23, 2007 @ 11:18 AM

As quoted by Arain one mother said:

“Thank you for answering the question so honestly, but” (looking at her daughter), “I’m going to have a lot of explaining to do.”

Fantabulous!!! Engage your child in a discussion about this topic before somebody else does. I had a friend tell me one of her daughter’s male classmates told her little girl that he wanted to have sex with her, and the little girl is only 5. Sex and sexuality is everywhere and more prevalent in our day to day lives than some of us are willing to admit.

If Dumbledore being gay gets parents to have real discussions with their children about love, sex, and sexuality, great!

Might the wise and admirable Dumbledore being gay help stop the word “gay” from being used as a synonym for every negative word in the English language among grade schoolers? If so, great!

I’m with IAM on this to some degree. I wouldn’t say “Who CARES????” but I will say that it shouldn’t matter as much as it seems to to some people. However, this is the U.S. after all. You know how some of us are and apparently so does everyone else in the world.

This is a comment from the article Hafsa references regarding Dumbledore being gay. The commenter is responding to the question of whether this news would have been as big a deal in Britain as it seems to have been here:

Sexuality is already discussed in schools and no, it isn’t a big deal here. If Jo had announced it here people would have been surprised to learn about something not made obviousin the books, but the vast majority of Brits would not have made a big dseal about it. It can seem, from over here, that Americans are polarised on so many issues, whether it’s race, sexuality, or religion, and all this in the LAND OF THE FREE.
Posted by Zee on October 23, 2007 @ 11:55 AM

(0.o) Interesting, no?

Oh, brother. Who CARES????

Does sex have to be brought into EVERYTHING? Can't we just have fun without debating who is bedding who and why?

It's a STORY, people. Make believe. Not real. It doesn't matter if Dumble-whoever was gay, straight or liked furry animals.

Get over it!

opposable thumbs, that is...

Unwarranted, hateful, and nothing to do with the article:

"Typical to pick a half hearted Muslim to try to convince the world of a Western disease."

How do you type spaces with no thumbs?

norrie hoyt: "I believe in evidence-based conclusions, both with respect to religion and to children's books.
Author J.K. Rowling says she "thought" of Dumbledore as being gay, but there's nothing in her books that objectively indicates this.
Therefore, based on the objective evidence (or lack therof), I have no more reason to believe in Dumbledore's gayness than I do in the Trinity.
If J.K. Rowling said she "thought" of God as being a Trinity, would I accept that as a fact based on her say-so alone?"

um... the main difference here being that Rowling created Dumbledore as a fictional character and quite frankly, if she says he's gay - he's gay.

comparing children's literature to the bible is problematic in that, you know, fiction admits that it's fiction, whereas the bible does not. besides, Rowling did not write the bible, so any assertion she made about the religious claims made would be as legitimate as some chat commenter asserting that they might know any better than the author of a piece of fiction what that author intended of her character.

norrie hoyt: "I believe in evidence-based conclusions, both with respect to religion and to children's books.
Author J.K. Rowling says she "thought" of Dumbledore as being gay, but there's nothing in her books that objectively indicates this.
Therefore, based on the objective evidence (or lack therof), I have no more reason to believe in Dumbledore's gayness than I do in the Trinity.
If J.K. Rowling said she "thought" of God as being a Trinity, would I accept that as a fact based on her say-so alone?"

um... the main difference here being that Rowling created Dumbledore as a fictional character and quite frankly, if she says he's gay - he's gay.

comparing children's literature to the bible is problematic in that, you know, fiction admits that it's fiction, whereas the bible does not. besides, Rowling did not write the bible, so any assertion she made about the religious claims made would be as legitimate as some chat commenter asserting that they might know any better than the author of a piece of fiction what that author intended of her character.

Dotherightthing, I seriously doubt that JKR considers Dumbledore's homosexuality a vice. That's the sort of prejudice she was trying to dispel with her books. There's nothing wrong with being different.

Since she wrote the books, JK ought to know whether she meant to portray the DD character asa homosexually inclined. So her answer (assuming it is truthful) is THE answer. However, to my knowledge, she never portrayed DD as "acting out his sexuality." So, I see this as no big deal. Everyone real person walking on the Earth today has faults and evil inclinations, and now we know a particular vice with which DD was portrayed as struggling. Good for JK that she did not portray DD as succumbing to that vice's temptations.

I'm ecstatic about this. As a gay fan, I always hoped for a gay character, just to reflect the diversity in the real world the way she has with characters of different ethnicities.

I also thought I saw a hint of a gay relationship between Dumbledore and Grindewald in book 7, but I wasn't sure. I wish it had been stated clearly in the books, but the fact we're finding out at all is great.

And Norrie Hoyt, this is JKR's world and she gets to decide what's in it. Just because you disagree with something she said doesn't make it untrue.

Eh, fwiw, after I read the last book I felt Rowling was hinting pretty strongly at a gay relationship between Dumbledore and Grimmelwald (was that his name?). (and btw, I'm a heterosexual female, so it's not like I was "hoping" to find this).

I don't think it's a particularly big deal, but it does explain some aspects of the story a little better. I guess this will turn into one of those debates that goes on forever, like "was Decker a replicant?"

I believe in evidence-based conclusions, both with respect to religion and to children's books.

Author J.K. Rowling says she "thought" of Dumbledore as being gay, but there's nothing in her books that objectively indicates this.

Therefore, based on the objective evidence (or lack therof), I have no more reason to believe in Dumbledore's gayness than I do in the Trinity.

If J.K. Rowling said she "thought" of God as being a Trinity, would I accept that as a fact based on her say-so alone?

Of course not.

I really think it' s a great thing that Dumbledore was gay. It shows that someone who is gay can be wise, skilled and a great teacher/example for others to follow. Which is common knowledge for some people but eye-opening for others. I'm just not sure about the way it was announced. Something about that felt wrong to me, especially since there's no mention of any kind of romantic relationship in the books.

Oh, and there is an additional meaning to the phrase 'Out of the Broom Closet' than the outing of Dumbledore. It's for someone like me, who is not able yet to tell the family that I'm Pagan for fear of bad reactions. So for now I remain out of the broom closet to everyone else except those I happen to be related to.

Blessed be!

Much like ignorance has it's consequences. Bravo. Don't like Western values? Move into the ocean.

Typical to pick a half hearted Muslim to try to convince the world of a Western disease. Its not natural and has its consequences. Talk about forcing ones religion off on other people. Not a good way for Dumb dore to use his magic wand.

Typical to pick a half hearted Muslim to try to convince the world of a Western disease. Its not natural and has its consequences. Talk about forcing ones religion off on other people. Not a good way for Dumb dore to use his magic wand.

Hafsa is right in the last sentence of her blog in seeing that J.K Rowling's point is indeed tolerance and acceptance of "different" people. it runs through the whole HP series as a main theme: The Death-Eathers hatred of mudbloods comes to mind, but also professor Lupin being a closeted werewolf, Hagrid a half giant, young Harry (and Voldemort) being segregated for having magic powers, there are more examples.
It is a smart move to "out" Dumbledore now, after the series is finished. Many parents (like the mother who walked up to the stage) will have to go through the not-so-negative experience of telling their kids that a character they love and trust happens to be gay. That won't kill them. Truth is: If they'd learned about D's sexual orientation before, they would probably have tried to avoid the confrontation alltogether by not buying the book. Everyone's better off this way.