I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[Tonks]

No: HPFGUIDX 178170

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:
>
C.J. said:

It depends on what argument we're making. To say that a homosexual 
DD is
not inconsistent with canon is probably true. To say that he WAS
homosexual based on a couple of ambiguous passages that *could* be
interpreted suggestively is a very weak argument at best. By that
argument, Gandalf and Frodo must've be doing the hot-n-heavies(Snip) 
how about Frodo and Sam? (Snip)Turin and Beleg were just good 
buddies? Or Merry and
Pippin? Come to think of it, Tolkie is just full of homoeroticism. If
that's what one's looking for, anyway.
snip) > 
> JKR's outting of DD tells us no more than that the DD of her 
imagination > was homosexual. The DD of canon, OTOH, not so much.
> 


Tonks:
It seems to me that people, especially young people, classify 
everyone according to their sexual orientation. One is either 
Straight, Bi, or Gay, as if sex were the most important thing in 
everyone’s life. Has no one ever heard of the concept 
of ‘celibacy’?  To be celibate is not the world of fridged women, 
eunuchs and gay priest.  Sex is meant for the formation of a family, 
not an exciting contact sport for Saturday night entertainment.  I 
know others in our society don’t agree with that, and I don’t care.  
Many people for thousands of years have lived lives of loving 
service to other as celibate members of society, most in Religious 
houses, and some in their own homes and families. 

As to the sexualization of American society, I can not spend time 
with a female friend without some young person asking me is she is 
my lover, or with a male friend, without people thinking I am on a 
date. Everything is sex, sex, sex.  Is this what our society has 
come to?

I never saw DD as a sexual person. As someone on another list 
said, ‘DD is above that’. He in interested in other things. I saw 
his as a celibate monk type person. And these books are written for 
children. Children are not concerned with sex; they are interested 
in more important things. Just as Rowling has not overtly shown 
Religion in the books, she also has not brought sex into it, other 
that the rather innocent pairing of some of the young people and the 
two marriages. IMO, it is not appropriate for her to bring in such a 
controversial item as someone being gay at this late date, and into 
a children’s book. Even if she had to, for some odd reason of her 
own, add a person who was gay, she should have chosen someone other 
than DD. 

I am upset at Rowlings actions primary for the impact it will have 
on the world. I don’t care if many people in the UK and U.S. are 
open minded and accepting. I am open minded and accepting too. But 
these books are read throughout the world. And this will have an 
impact on those people who are not as ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ as 
the rest of us like to think that we are. 

Rowling has been very successful in doing want so many have dreamed 
of and failed to do. She has united all people of the world. People 
of all ages, races, religions, and nationalities have embraced the 
teaching of Albus Dumbledore as if he were a god.  They have great 
respect for DD.  Through him she has give great lessons on moral 
theology to people the world over. These are timeless lessons, given 
us by others long before DD, but through him they are brought afresh 
to the world of today.  This is very good. And the unifying 
influence of the HP series is also a good thing.  Now Rowlings has 
taken out the gun and shot herself in the foot.  For whatever 
personal reason, one can only guess. But it severs no useful purpose 
to discredit her wisest of wizard in the eyes of millions of people 
who do not share our world view.  For example, the books are read by 
many Muslims the world over and in places such as Iran. How do you 
think those people are taking this news?  All I can say, is what the 
hell was she thinking!!

Tonks_op