Parents who are ignorant enough to believe that sexual orientation is something that can be "indoctrinated" are the ones who won't let their kids read the Harry Potter books anyway because they are about wizards, and, to them, "unChristian."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a waste of time. Our youth seem more focused on horribly violent video games and wondering whether a fictional character invented by a billionaire finds true love. It is too bad so much money and time is wasted on such nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they're in high dudgeon over the sexuality of a fictional character.
Here's my advice to the hijackers of the Christian faith: pay close attention to what YOUR children read, and everybody else will do the same.
If you want your children to believe that a man was swallowed by a whale, and lived to tell the tale - fine.
If you want your children to believe that a man gathered all of the world's animals and floated them on a barge - fine.
If you want your children to believe that desert people were so inept that they wandered in the desert for forty years - fine.
If you want your children to believe that a sky-god gave nomads some very rocky real estate, instead of, oh I dunno, someplace like modern day France, or Tuscany - fine.
If you want your children to believe that children have to get the tips of their dicks snipped, to appease the sky-god - fine.
If you want your children to believe that some old codger stumbled around "city" walls, blowing a rams horn until the walls crumbled - fine.
If you want your children to believe that a man lived to over nine hundred years old - fine.
If you want your children to believe that a man and a woman had two sons, one of the sons murdered the other, and the murdering son went off and married, who? Koko the gorilla's great-grandmother? - fine.
In other words, you already have plenty of 'splaining to do; don't add another fictional character to your list of things to explain. Plus, you'll have to explain how the majority of the world's populations have managed, nicely, without your mythology and terrorism.
Oh! I almost forgot! Explain Leviticus to them! Now that's higher math!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Despite gay marriage being legal here for a couple years... the only people who think you can marry a goat are folks like Bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Oh, by the way, this character that your children love and idolize is gay. Ha ha ha! Take that, parents who want to decide what their children should read!"

Also, one has to wonder in the books why Rita Skeeter, who never hesitated to write about any other juicy bit, real or contrived, never outed Dumbledore in the wizard daily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

amusing that the first posters are so intloerant. Typical though.
O’Reilly’s words and with no one posting a single Christian agreement, the antis have to come out and attack.
“sexual orientation” and “indoctrination in gay lifestyle” are two different things. If you want to get people to understand that then you have to be the one to explain it correctly.
As for the need for tolerance – how about demonstrating that tolerance?
How is this jumping on Christians who haven’t even said anything showing tolerance?
Either way if you actually read what is posted, O’Reilly questioned why the author suddenly “outed” the gay character. In the words of “the left” at this site, you must have been acting underhanded if you weren’t honest in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Dumbledore was gay, wouldn't he have figured out how to keep himself looking 25 forever? I always thought it was that Hagrid guy that was gay, he's such a mega bear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The comment by Ms. Rowling was unnecessary since sex or relationships from a sexual point of view was never a factor in the book series. Her comment was pointless. I guess she has made enough money off of the books and wanted to cause a little controversy, which contributed absolutely nothing, except to allow those that have always been opposed to the series for whatever reasons now able to say "I told you so." Ms. Rowling, what were you thinking?....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horatio Hornblower was gay!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill O'Reilly alledgedly is accurate and unbiased .Hmmm.....He dos'nt even seem to know that Rowling rhymes with bowling... I assume that this is an example of his stellar research skills .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faux Noise and O'Reilly are relly scrambling to find pathetic stories pad out their broadcasts. We have real news stories which could be discussed, but none of these, even in the spin zone, cast the neocons in a favourable light, so O'Reilly feigns annoyance at the outing of a closeted gay fictitious character.

I could be wrong - maybe Bill is just annoyed at how many more books J.K. Rowling has sold than he has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'Rielly is far and away the worst thing that has happened to the Irish since Joe McCarthy. Rowling may have or may not have attempted to enlighten some. It is her book, her character. He lives and dies on her word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never really liked O'Reilly but I really don't find the homophobia in this particular interview. Being in the arts, I have many gay friends, and in my neighborhood many gay parents. None of them wear shirts saying "I an gay" and if they did, I would wonder why, as I don't really care. Using a modifier like "gay" in Rowling's case is used in a derogatory sense, using it to patronize, suggesting that the norm for the role is the gender not specified, and/or that someone of that orientation to be found in that role to be somewhat remarkable or pecular.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What are YOU smoking in your, er, ah, "closet"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in Britain and from where I'm sitting I can hear JK laughing. O DEAR, HELLO, Is that sill you America???
X pat whew a close one

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Somewhere there's a contest running for the biggest loopiest nut on the planet. We know who the front runners are...

Geeze you freaks, She invented, wrote in the characters in Her books.
They are Fictional (except to those -above who Believe in such Fictions).
Get over it, freaks. Gays are among us, as are you and me, and all your theatrics only make you out to be the irrational freaks you are, denying the nature of life and the living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Revealing that Dumbledore was gay doesn't really add to or take away from the story. It was never used as a device in any of the books, for example, to show some sort of personal struggle for the character, or to reveal the reasons for a particular course of action taken by the character.

Whatever Rowling's intentions, revealing this fact is about as significant to the whole saga as would be George Lucas revealing that Han Solo once wanted to be a farmer. It's a minute detail that offers nothing of real value to the plot.

The right wing talking heads? Most of them are sexually repressed tight asses, but it's funny how it's always the right wingers who get caught renting hookers or fondling little boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I'm very very suspicious about what they're (wizards) doing in their spare time"

That has got to be the funniest goddamn thing I have heard in a long time. Someone should follow up on this, are there any other fictional characters with fictional occupations that have his panties in a bunch: unicorn wranglers, skyhook technicians, or superhero valets? Wadda maroon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This demonstrates a key flaw in the right wing's position on gay issues: their inability to distinguish between GAYNESS (i.e. the gender of people you are attracted to) and GAY SEX (which, of course, is just "icky").

The person he interviews says "you don't know anything about the sex lives of any of the teachers." And that's true, but we do learn about the LOVE lives of some of the other teachers, and that's what this revelation is about. Sex truly doesn't come into the story at all, and for all we know, Dumbledore's love went unconsummated and he remained celibate his whole life. The point is that he fell in LOVE with another man, and that love was his "greatest tragedy" as Rowling said. It's a beautiful parallel to the OTHER tragic love in the series (which, I might add, also involved a Hogwarts teacher!) and I don't see how this revelation is any more potentially damaging to child readers than any of the other very adult content of the final Potter book (murder, racism, sexual assault, Nazi-like persecution, a giant snake emerging from a dead woman's head, etc etc).

What's funny to me is that nobody has anything to say about Dumbledore's brother Aberforth and his unnatural interest in goats. I guess O'Reilly thinks that's just fine as long as they're FEMALE goats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These people are talking about gay folks just like white power idiots talk about jews. As if they had all gathered together in some conspiratorial fashion like the bad guys on the x files. That is absurd. There is no such thing as a gay agenda. All the lobby groups I know of just work toward "modest" things like stopping gay men from being dragged from the back of trucks. I don't know of a single one that makes it its objective to 'turn america's young gay'-- a position implied in O'Rielly's language of 'gay agenda' and 'indoctrination'.

What fox news calls the gay agenda is simply a group of people, both gay and straight, saying: look everybody, gay people are here, they have been and they will be. Get over it. Fox news and their cohorts would have everybody believe that the HRC and anybody like me, a straight dude who thinks adults' genitals and lives are their own damn business, they would have their audience believe that anybody who says homosexuality is a normal thing is pro-NAMBLA. Well, guess what, the only folks I know of trying to actively indoctrinate a person into a sexual lifestyle are christian gay to straight conversion groups. I don't see any flyers for thursday afternoon 'come to the wonderful world of gayness' seminars anywhere. However, nobody bugs out about right wingers forcing heterosexuality as the one and only norm down everybody's throat. For some reason that is ''accecptable".

In short what I am saying is, if there is any gay agenda that I see, it is not to perform indoctrinations, but seek fair protection under the law and under public opinion. While on the other hand, there is an organized political movement to prohibit homosexuality, demonize it, make it illegal, and to indoctrinate people into the idea that anything other boy girl sex is actually evil. It is obvious to me how ridiculous that is.

And for the record, this is coming from a confirmed straight guy. I have never met any gay person who tried to make me gay. But I have met plenty of right wing idiots that won't shut up about how anything but hetero is evil. All you psych majors out there shout out about which of these two parties is the more insecure: a group of gay folks just let us be and be up front about it, or a group of fanatics saying everybody has to be like them or go to hell.

Since I think the fanatics are clearly paranoid and insane, and since I think people should be left to their own designs as to what to do with their genitalia in their spare time, I guess that drops me in the gay agenda envelope, even though I'm straight.

So here it goes: because I am a rational and reasonable person, and because I don't worry about how a fictional wizard being declared gay is destroying our youth on the rail of the gay agenda, I must be part of the gay agenda. I'll be spending the rest of my day conspiring with my friends on how to turn the whole world gay, especially the children. Obviously I'm being satirical here. But seriously, there is a group called god hates fags. Haven't seen one that says god hates breeders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JK Rowling did a fantastic job of developing very complex characters. If she had really been pushing a "gay agenda" she would have made dumbldore's gayness a bigger part of her story. You can read all 7 books and never know dumbldore is gay.

This is what you call background info. for the right wingers to go nuts over this just shows them to be crazy....once again.

For me, this incident just makes me love the books and the author all the much more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess I am an idealist. I don't understand how in the United States it is that ignorant, bigoted people like O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Don Imus, and their ilk, get to have so much media attention and air time. To me, it is almost the same as giving equal time to representatives from the American Nazi Party or the KKK. If Harry Potter's characters were real life, children would know that Dumbledore is one of the people to be most trusted, amongst all of the characters in the book. It is with good reason that Rowling's series has become popular among kids of all ages and adults and translated into many languages: the central characters are people, real people, that support one another, no matter what the odds, and they tolerate each other's differences, and respect each other as individuals. So, even young children of seven or eight read the Potter series, and perceive this. They perceive that Dumbledore trusted the abrasive, highly obnoxious character, Snape, for good reasons; and Snape and Dumbledore made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the youth under their care. The book makes the point repeatedly that society is evolving into a place of tolerance and mutual respect; this includes the students of varying national origins attending Hogwarts, and even the people of the lowest servant class, the elves, such as Dobby and his kin. Rowling was not trying to be a provocateur in stating that Dumbledore was gay; merely she is stating that in her mind, she had imagined him as a gay male, who had become enamoured of one of the evil wizards in the book, and been disappointed in that love. Keep in mind, on his show, O'Reilly attacked a young man whose father had died in the World Trade Center, and called him unpatriotic for daring to suggest the foolishness of the idea that the invasion of Iraq was an appropriate reaction to the deaths in the towers. This man has no shame whatsoever, and contributes nothing to the conversation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumbledore is whomever and whatever each reader imagined him to be. That's what reading is, using the imagination to picture the characters in your own way. Rowling can't retroactively step in and delcare Dumbledore gay even if she is the author; that's just stupid...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is not only with fantasy characters but also with real politicians. When O'Reilly’s comments on Mitt Romney’s jaw-line and his “looks”, it is not a far stretch to think that Bill has at some level homosexual tendencies. Personalities like Bill, who often protest way too much, often turn out to be closet cases themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

did what? Served what? And it matters...why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An old, fag-bashing, womanizing, racist goat that thrives on creating misery and death for his own greedy purposes.

Baaaa-aaaaaaaaa!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although those wizards, I'm very very suspicious about what they're doing in their spare time.

They're doing nothing unless you count existing in Rowling's mind as doing something.

I don't know that "outing" Dumbledore the way Rowling did it was the best idea, but I understand why she did it. She wanted to keep the character true in the movies to her vision in the books, and him being gay was important to her vision. So she had to prevent him from having a past lady love in the movie. But beyond that, what's the whole hoo-hah about? Only people who dislike gays (and don't tell me O'Liely "loves the sinner but hates the sin" because he only makes his money when he hates the sinner loudly and with venom) feel obliged to make this an issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Enquirer:

Dumbledorf and Barney the Dinosaur were seen together stepping out of a seamy Motel Sex in a Baltimore suburb. When confronted by news reporters, Dumbledorf blushed a vivid purple (Barney was already there), and responded with a somewhat outraged timbre:

"We're just getting together to hammer out a contract for a new movie deal."

Ms. Rowling, when questioned later by our Roving-Eye Reporter, refused to comment. Gossip tidbit: She was holding a glorious bouquet with a tag that said: "Love you always. xoxoxo Nellie." Could this be the very same "Nellie" of Loch Ness Monster legend? Read next week's issue to find out!

(If this leads to marital bliss, we'll be tossing Anne Rice at the wedding!)

Sinqueerly,

Zeke Krahlin (gay-bible.org)
The Hedda Hopper of Fabulous LGBTQ Gossip, Dish, Speculation and Sheer Envy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another right wing homophobe! Hmmm. Is O'Really in the closet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]