One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Carol]

[Carol earlier, unattributed in Susan's post]:
> > If, for example, someone on this list were to argue that women
should not be allowed to stay home and be housewives because housework
is degrading, I would probably consider that person an idiot, but I
wouldn't use the word on this list. He or she has the right to be
wrong (assuming that I'm right in this instance). Or if I want to say
that illegal immigrants should be sent back over the border (just as
an example of an opinion some people might consider "intolerant"), I
have the right not only to write those words but to defend them
without being attacked. Perhaps we should respond to the ideas
themselves rather than to the speaker. ("I disagree because . . ." not
"You're a bigot and you're hurting my feelings.")

Susan responded:
> Well, it would be nice if someone would address me directly, but I 
guess that people who are abnormal and who have chosen a sinful 
lifestyle don't deserve simple courtesy.
> 
> I said that my feelings were hurt, that this kind of commentary is 
upsetting in order to humanize the discussion.
> 
> If I were an undocumented worker, and someone said I should be sent
back over the border, I would be understandably upset as well.
> 
> I'm trying to make the point that we are dealing with real peoples'
lives here, and to say "well, you're just getting upset, we're having
an intellectual discussion, everyone's entitled to their opinion."
> 
> Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that the type
of nonsense that is being spouted by people about lesbians and gay men
is based in bigotry and ignorance. Someone might want to take a look
at the scientific research about "changing" someone's sexual
orientation. Or at the research that is finding that children of
lesbians and gay men do just as well emotionally as the children of
heterosexuals.
> 
> Otherwise, a poor young kid who is gay or who is a lesbian is going
to read this stuff, and say (gosh, I don't want to live a life where 
everyone thinks I'm abnormal and immoral, maybe I can change?) or
worse yet, thinks about killing themselves because they can't imagine
leading a happy or normal life.
> 
> It really seems as if people would like me to be silent. It seems to
me that it's okay for YOU to have YOUR opinions about the abnormality
and immorality of "homosexuality" but it's not okay for me to have MY
opinions about injustice and intolerance.


Carol:
Since you quoted me without identifying me and then asked me to
address you directly, I'll do so (in fact, I just did so in the
previous post). Please don't attribute bias to me that I have not
expressed. I have not said and will never say that you are "abnormal
and have chosen a sinful lifestyle." Please do me the courtesy of not
putting words in my mouth. And I do believe that you, Del, and
everyone else on this list deserves simple courtesy. It's what I'm
arguing for.

The illegal immigrant example (I didn't say "undocumented worker";
it's not the same thing since not all illegal aliens come here to
work) was just an illustration of a remark that a person has the right
to say and support without being attacked. I'm not going to express my
views on the subject even though I live in Southern Arizona, where
it's an important political issue and many people hold that view. I'm
merely saying that a person who makes such a statement should be
allowed to make it without having his character attacked. The person
who opposes such a view can present rational counterarguments that are
more likely to persuade the person to change his view, assuming that
he's wholly or partially wrong, than being called a bigot. (Did you
know, BTW, that Islamic terrorists are among the people who sneak over
the border from Mexico into Arizona? But I don't want to argue
politics, particularly issues with no connection to HP.)

I respect your point that we're dealing with real people's lives here,
 but I disagree. We're dealing with the HP books and JKR's revelation,
which is about her fictional character, and with her statement. "He's
my character. He is what he is." My main concern is her view that she
owns the characters and her evident feeling that she can control the
interpretation of the books after the fact. Nothing to do with you and
your lifestyle at all. In fact, the only person who has any cause to
be upset with my opinions is JKR herself because she's the one I'm
saying is mistaken with regard to authorial intention. Her imagined
view of a character and what she has put on the page are two different
things, and even the words on the page are subject to interpretation.
I realize that I'm approaching the issue from an intellectual
standpoint, but that's what I'm concerned about: intellectual
issues--the right to interpret, the right to civil debate, the right
to express ideas. I also have the right to use hypothetical examples.
I'm not, after all, really defending those ideas. And I confess that I
would be upset by someone whose "ideas" included, say, the right or
duty to be a suicide bomber. I'm not defending the right to spread
hatred or give kids instructions on bomb-making. (Again, a
*hypothetical example* of the point at which the right to free speech
ends, IMO.)

to return to your concerns. Rather than accusing others of spouting
"nonsense" (and I can think of only one post that would qualify for
that label, but I'm not naming names), perhaps you could provide links
to the scientific research that supports your claims, which those who
oppose your views could answer by providing links of their own. Notice
that I'm not including myself in this debate. I have no idea whether
your views are correct. My impression is that the jury is still out on
the causes of homosexuality (which is not a bad word but a technical
term comparable to heterosexuality, also not a bad word but simply a
technical term for a person's sexual preference). Someone might,
indeed, "want to take a look at the scientific research about
"changing" someone's sexual orientation." Perhaps you could help us by
providing links to exactly that sort of information, assuming that
it's relevant to the discussion. (I may have mentioned the point as a
hypothetical reason why someone might be opposed to homosexuality, but
I don't think it has actually been raised as a point of discussion in
this thread. As for the issue of lesbians and gay men as parents, I'm
not sure where it fits in at all. Nothing to do with Dumbledore or
reasons whey certain readers might object to his presence in the books
that I can see. I think it's your own concern that somehow got brought
into this discussion without having been raised, even hypothetically,
as a possible objection to gay!DD.)

As for a young kid of any sexual orientation reading this list, it's a
list for grownups. And killing themselves because someone is
advocating freedom of speech? You're charging me with a pretty grave
crime here, and I haven't charged you with anything or asked you to do
anything except stop using the word "bigot."

And, yes, of course, it's okay for me to have my opinions. It's okay
for you to have your opinions. It is not, however, okay to attribute
to me opinions that I have not expressed.

No one is saying that gay people have not suffered from
misunderstanding and injustice and prejudice. What we are saying is
that everyone has the right to express their opinions and that
labeling some opinions as bigotry is, in itself, a form of intolerance.

Carol, making one more plea for civility and rational arguments before
bowing out, permanently and irrevocably, from this discussion