Wondering

[slytherin_jenn]

> Del replies:
> I said right in my very first post that in my theory I saw DD as *NOT*
> gay at all, but *ONLY* as ephebophile. And I have repeated that very
> same thing again and again since then. What's not to understand in
> this? What's to be confused about in this? How much clearer could it be?

Celoneth:
And what I am saying is that your argument reads in a muddled manner.
You made that theory in a conversation about DD being gay, and calling
a gay person an ephebophile is not a neutral thing - the gay = sexual
deviant logic has been used by bigots and when a lot of people read
such a statement, they're going to be put on guard automatically.
Frankly, your evidence to support your theory is weak and maybe that's
why so many people have a problem with it. You use the fact that he
had an age appropriate relationship/crush, the fact that he probably
didn't pursue any other relationships after that one proved
disasterous and the fact that he's a headmaster and spends lots of
time around young people to defend a theory that has a lot of loaded
connotations to many people. All this evidence is either extremely
circumstantial or speculative. If you're going to post something that
you should know to become controversial w/ the nature of this entire
debate, then maybe try to have better evidence - otherwise it sound
like you're speculating to prove a very controversial position.

Furthermore, some of your analogies - comparing gays to murderers,
making it sound as if being gay is a "moral crime" just sound horribly
offensive. I appreciate you taking time to explain them, but your
original choice of language is problematic - you use loaded terms and
analogies and then are upset that people get offended by them.
Language matters a lot, a lot of words and ideas have historical
connotations that significantly impact the meaning of those words.
Celoneth