One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[colebiancardi]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch"
<delwynmarch at ...> wrote:
>
 
> > However, in the case of JKR, it is her opinion - 
> > and since DD is her brainchild(or brainwizard), 
> > she has every right to be angry or disappointed 
> > that the fans would take this to an extreme level.
> 
> I don't understand why? She created DD, she put him 
> on paper, and she didn't present him as gay. And then 
> she's disappointed because some readers don't want him 
> to be gay. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, it's 
> entirely her fault. If she wanted all her readers to be 
> OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD,
> so that all people reading the books would know that DD 
> was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from 
> them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, 
> it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your 
> mind.
> 

colebiancardi:

What is gay?  what is the difference between a gay person and a
straight person in their character, their beliefs, their lives?  As
far as I can tell, nothing.  A gay person acts just like a straight
person.  JKR wrote DD as a wizard who is man.  Since DD's sex life was
not explored in the HP series, there is nothing to state whether he
preferred women instead of men.  How do you write a gay DD?  Really? 
By a sterotype?  By DD having a boyfriend?  There was no indication in
the books that DD was straight either, if you go by that.

 
> 
> > However, universal morality dictated that our gov't 
> > intervene and make it a federal law that allowed 
> > blacks to vote.
> 
> I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply 
> the Constitution.
> 
colebiancardi:
The Constitution also stated that blacks were lesser than whites when
it was written.  Thank goodness, it got changed.
> I must say I wonder at the phrase "universal morality". 
> What do you mean by that?

colebiancardi:
some things transcend age, race, religion, sexuality, gender.  We are
humans, first and foremost.

> 
> > I never understood the argument "hate the sin,
> > but love the sinner". I have always viewed that as 
> > a cop-out to tackle the real reasons why someone 
> > could "hate" a "sin".
> 
> Well, that's an example of why I believe it is so
> incredibly important that people try and UNDERSTAND each 
> other: for many Christians, "hate the sin and love the 
> sinner" is a very deep, real and meaningful concept.

colebiancardi:

as a person raised in the Catholic faith, I understand the concept and
I reject it as to me, it is a cop-out for not understanding and trying
to relate to people who are different.

> 
> > Adultery, stealing, lying are all in the 10 
> > commandments; being gay is not - you'd think if it 
> > was such a moral sin, God would have made Moses 
> > write that one out on the top 10
> 
> Since God ordered marriage between man and woman only, 
> and then forbade all sexual relationships outside of 
> marriage, homosexuality was automatically condemned. 
> Condemning it specifically would have been redundant.

colebiancardi:

not in the 10 commandments He didn't.  There is nothing in the 10
commandments that state marriage is between a man & woman only.  Also,
the Bible is full of relationships that are questionable.  Hand
maidens who aren't married to the man, who is married to another woman
who is too old to give birth, but God gave the OK for the man to have
sex with her.  Or Lot and his daughters.   Incest isn't mentioned in
the 10 commandments either - is that redundant?  Or is it ok by the
Bible's standards?

> 
> > Out of all of the passages in the Bible, there are 
> > only a couple that deal with homosexuality and that 
> > really was just a reflection and a backlash against 
> > the Greek & Roman cultures at the time.
> 
> Many Christians understand a couple of verses in Leviticus 
> and Deuteronomy to be directly about homosexuality. 
> That would make them (the verses) part of the Mosaic Law, 
> which is older than the Greek and Roman cultures if 
> I'm not mistaken.
> 

colebiancardi:  
nope.  it isn't older.  Greeks were very much around - look at the
historical timeframe that those chapters were written in, by man. 

> Many other Christians hold other positions which allow them 
> to embrace homosexuality.
> 
> But who is to say which groups of Christians have got it 
> right, and which ones have got it wrong? Who is to say that 
> "these ones are interpreting the Bible correctly but those 
> ones are misinterpreting it" ? There is no ultimate human 
> authority on how to interpret the Bible.

colebiancardi:

which is why some things need to evolve with time.  The Bible is an
interesting read, but I view it in a historical context - with the
social, ecomonic, cultural emphasis.  A lot of it is stories written
by man to understand the world around them.  Of course, that is my
opinion, but I do not take the Bible literally, nor do many others. 
Otherwise, people wouldn't love football as much (there is a reference
to pigskins in the Bible as being verboten).  And women in Western
cultures no longer have to hide from their men during that time of the
month, nor do men considered them unclean.


 
> And if people are sincerely convinced that they are 
> interpreting the Bible correctly, then how can they 
> be expected NOT to act on their beliefs?

colebiancardi:
and that is part of the continuing educational process.  The Church
took a hard line against Jews prior to WWII - a lot of the Nazi
rhetoric was taken straight from the pulpit - many of those Nazi laws
had been, at one time or another in the Church's history, decrees
against Jews.  That is why the Vatican II came out in the 1960's - to
try to make Catholism more accepting of different beliefs and to break
apart the old myths and hatred.

The way I look at it is to try to put myself in the minority group in
question.  Then I ask if this is morally fair and just.  Do I like how
I am being treated?  Do I like how others perceive me?  Do I feel that
I am given the same opportunities that the majority group has?

if any of those answers is no, then I, as the majority group, is wrong
in my treatment of the minority group.  

And in case you were going to ask, Christianity is not a minority
group - it is a majority group in the US and probably in the Western
World.

And that is another thing about the US.  The minority groups are
protected from the will of the majority groups - otherwise, only
white, male property owners would be able to vote and dictate our
country's path.

thank goodness that has changed.  

colebiancardi