lilclerk
Well-Known Member
Totally agree, though I still wish he was my third grandpa. I guess it'd have to be adopted grandpa, but it works.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Dumbledore Gay
- Thread starter JimboJones123
- Start date
Totally agree, though I still wish he was my third grandpa. I guess it'd have to be adopted grandpa, but it works.
Pongo
New Member
Yet there are still those stories where murder, suicide, and drugs are portrayed in positive lights. Smoking is bad for you and I don't agree with it, but there are plenty of heroes and protagonists in stories that do it. Just because the author writes it as so doesn't mean they are promoting it. I'm a writer and there are plenty of things I've written about in a positive way that I don't condone doing.
sbkline said:
There's definitely an extent to where I'm correct, not to be cocky or anything :lol:
Aestheticism, a radical movement of Victorian Era England was all about art and its purposeless nature. Their motto was "Art for art's sake" and one of the most important members of the movement was Oscar Wilde (author of The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Importance of Being Earnest, among others). Art doesn't have to have meaning in order to be art. Personally, I think that writing is the highest form of art and books can be books without having meaning or morals. In fact, I think searching for morals and meaning in some books actually lowers the value of them and belittles the genius of the story.
If you want further proof that art doesn't need a purpose, look at Magritte's paintings. They'll throw you for a loop.
Okay, I'm off my soapbox.
polarboi
Member
I think that a lot of this conversation might be best had over private message, as I tend to agree with The Mom that rarely does anyone have anything useful to add on these topics, and this discussion is an emotional one for many people.
However, I did want to add this bit, which may be helpful.
Part of my job involves working with families and churches that have been torn apart over the issue of homosexuality, particularly within the Christian faith. One trend I often notice is that what people think of when they say "gay" is typically connected to their experiences with gay people and their beliefs on the subject.
People who are generally disapproving of the topic and/or who have had limited exposure to gay people often think of it more as a sexual thing, whereas those who are gay themselves or have many close gay friends are more likely to think of it as an inborn element of someone's personality and an answer to the question, "If and when you fall in love, who would you fall in love with?"
I don't want to get into a debate about which of these is the more "correct" way to see it, since we could have endless debates about various theories of what causes people to be gay, whether they can change, and so on. (This is what I do for a living; I've heard it all.) But I bring this up only because I imagine that JK Rowling meant the revelation very differently from how some others have interpreted it. She likely has gay friends and views it as a biological condition. For her, this likely wasn't a sexual question at all but a romantic one, just as easily as if she had created a backstory that Dumbledore had once been in love with a woman and never loved again after that romance failed. If she had mentioned this in a Q&A when asked about his love life, it would never have made news. The reason this did is that the love life backstory she imagined (with a male wizard) brings up a moral issue that many Americans disapprove of.
None of us know JK personally (as far as I'm aware!) but given my years of experience in this field, my own guess is that she likely created this backstory for him because it just fit in her own mind (perhaps he was even modeled after someone she knew or something like that) and not because she was trying to endorse any particular moral view. Of course, the fact that she has that perspective reveals what her own moral view on the subject is, but I'm not convinced that she was setting out to make a statement on it as a religious/moral issue.
Whether you agree or disagree with JK's view, does what I'm saying make sense, just in terms of trying to understand?
And for those of you who are just dying to talk about whether you do or don't agree with that perspective or who want more information, feel free to send me a PM. I'm happy to discuss more details on these questions (causes, morality, the Bible, and all that) in private, but I'm not going to do it on this thread because it would just stir things up. :wave:
-p.b.
However, I did want to add this bit, which may be helpful.
Part of my job involves working with families and churches that have been torn apart over the issue of homosexuality, particularly within the Christian faith. One trend I often notice is that what people think of when they say "gay" is typically connected to their experiences with gay people and their beliefs on the subject.
People who are generally disapproving of the topic and/or who have had limited exposure to gay people often think of it more as a sexual thing, whereas those who are gay themselves or have many close gay friends are more likely to think of it as an inborn element of someone's personality and an answer to the question, "If and when you fall in love, who would you fall in love with?"
I don't want to get into a debate about which of these is the more "correct" way to see it, since we could have endless debates about various theories of what causes people to be gay, whether they can change, and so on. (This is what I do for a living; I've heard it all.) But I bring this up only because I imagine that JK Rowling meant the revelation very differently from how some others have interpreted it. She likely has gay friends and views it as a biological condition. For her, this likely wasn't a sexual question at all but a romantic one, just as easily as if she had created a backstory that Dumbledore had once been in love with a woman and never loved again after that romance failed. If she had mentioned this in a Q&A when asked about his love life, it would never have made news. The reason this did is that the love life backstory she imagined (with a male wizard) brings up a moral issue that many Americans disapprove of.
None of us know JK personally (as far as I'm aware!) but given my years of experience in this field, my own guess is that she likely created this backstory for him because it just fit in her own mind (perhaps he was even modeled after someone she knew or something like that) and not because she was trying to endorse any particular moral view. Of course, the fact that she has that perspective reveals what her own moral view on the subject is, but I'm not convinced that she was setting out to make a statement on it as a religious/moral issue.
Whether you agree or disagree with JK's view, does what I'm saying make sense, just in terms of trying to understand?
And for those of you who are just dying to talk about whether you do or don't agree with that perspective or who want more information, feel free to send me a PM. I'm happy to discuss more details on these questions (causes, morality, the Bible, and all that) in private, but I'm not going to do it on this thread because it would just stir things up. :wave:
-p.b.
I think it's a great time to pull back the curtian on this one. Would any other time be better?
Figment571
Member
So that's why he always smiles at Harry, and then tries to avoid him......:lookaroun
sillyspook13
Well-Known Member
The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss.