One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Miles]

Tonks wrote:
> Our ideas, if near and dear to us, become part of us and
> when they are attacked, it can feel as if we are being attacked. (I
> know that I have felt this way on the main list a time or two in the
> past.) That is the nature of a debate when both sides own their POV
> and are not just debating for the hell of it. I think that is just
> the way it is.

Miles:
Generally you are absolutely right. But here I am not so sure.
Because there is a difference between both positions. To be homosexual is no
choice, no belief. It's not an idea, it's not to be changed (there's no
other scientifically accepted position). But to believe that something is
immoral and that it should not be proclaimed, or talked about, or whatever,
that is an opinion or a belief that *can* be changed.

So, if Susan feels attacked, she feels attacked for what she *is*, while
others might feel attacked for their *opinions*. That's really not the same.
If tolerance is defined as the "suspect, the adverseries could be right",
the only chance for Susan to accept her counterparts' position would be to
deny her own personality and existence.
On the other hand, statements about homosexuality are just one minor part of
any Christian or other religious catechism, so nobody would have to deny
even his own faith by accepting Susan's POV - not to speak of personality
and existence.

Miles