TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . RESIZER . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through July 15, 2011

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Big Brother USA ARCHIVES: Big Brother 13 - Part 2: Jeff/Kalia Discussion Regarding Dumbledore Being Gay: Archive through July 15, 2011 users admin

Author Message
Pinklady222
Member

07-16-2009

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 5:22 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Pinklady222 a private message Print Post    
Both are out of ignorance and false truths. I don't think tolerance is the issue as NEITHER should be tolerated, and both need to be re-educated. I think the issue is that is does NO ONE any good to harbor HATRED for the ignorant. It doesn't help to change the mindset of the ignorant, and it is unhealthy for the person who is caught up in the hatred.

Keldogg
Member

08-12-2005

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 5:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Keldogg a private message Print Post    
I believe everyone in the world has a bias and a lot of them are based on experiences. It's as Karuuna described, it's a knee jerk reaction, our body and mind reacting to some "type" of person that we have either had a bad interaction with, or been taught it would be dangerous to have an interaction with.

I know I have a reaction to a person with certain physical characteristics, due to an experience that happened to me in college. I literally have to tell myself...it's not the same person, this person is not going to hurt you, etc. I hope it goes away someday, but don't know that it will.

Yes, we should be tolerant, yes, we should accept all people and I try to be that way. But when I see people that I perceive with a bias, I always wonder, what may have happened to them?

Anyway, just my two cents, as they say :-)

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 8:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
I think it is nurture, not nature..

Remembering that song from the fifties (at least when I heard it when we saw South Pacific) or earlier..


You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to Year
It's got to be drummed
in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
To be Afraid
Of people whose eyes
are oddly made
And people whose skin
Is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught

Sunshyne4u
Member

06-16-2003

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 8:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sunshyne4u a private message Print Post    
frogi, i completely believe those stats. Everyone i know that are female and a couple of guys also had at least ONE molestation or Sexual exposure of some kind. I dont want to say anything about myself cause my Mommy reads here sometimes

I was raised in a rough area and saw experienced way too much. Lets just say when I went to have sleepovers, I was "extra cautious" of dads/ stepdads. I had a few friends which removed from their homes due to Abuse.

Since i was in a small area with families with secrets, I dont recall anyone OPENLY out when i was in school. it was a different time in the 70s



Earthmother
Member

07-13-2002

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 9:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Earthmother a private message Print Post    
You think it was different in the 70s how about the 60s? There may have been a peace movement going on, but homophobia and racism weren't bothered by it. Women didn't have the ability to communicate with each other like they do now. I know for a fact my mother's life would have been soooooooo different if she had internet and social networking or even a job. Back then usually only divorced women and those not married went to work.

It really wasn't that long ago, and look how much we have accomplished through education. Yes, there will always be those who feel that those who are different from them are less of a person because that's what they have been told their whole lives. But technology will produce it's own evolution, and we will see fewer and fewer of those who rail against become those who stand up for those who have been persecuted.

Babies are born innocent, with no ill feelings for anyone. They are taught to be hateful, selfish and intolerent. It's important that we watch what we say and how we say things in front of kids. These little sponges soak up all their wisdom or lack thereof from the adults around them.

I'm glad this has come up because Jeff can see that it wasn't ignored the last time he made these kinds of statement nor was it overlooked this time.

Marksman
Member

05-04-2007

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Marksman a private message Print Post    
My quick two cents.. It is ridiculous that JK Rowling came out after writing 10,000 pages of books and never mentioned or alluded to this fact.

That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story.

Someone saying Dumbledore is gay is an entirely loaded question. I would have had a similar output to Jeff from the standpoint that Dumbledore's sexual preferences is totally irrelevant to everything that has to do with Harry Potter.

It pisses me off when people try to co-opt something that has nothing to do with sexuality and use it as a reason to claim discrimination or bias. It does the exact opposite of what they claim they want. It promotes bias and discrimination.

Whether Dumbledore likes men, women or toothbrushes is not relevant in any way shape or form and should have never been brought up by anyone. So for someone to say that is wrong, they are 100% right. It should not have ever been an issue. It was inappropriate in the first place and put out there to incite, that is why it is wrong and that is why I think people who are making an issue out of this have a lot more to answer for than Jeff does.

Until people stop making isues out of things like this and more importantly trying to co-opt non-sexual circumstances to promote sexual preference we are still going to have massive problems.

Saying Dumbledore is gay is a completely loaded statement, and JK Rowling should be called to task for saying it and Kalia should be called to task for repeating it.

It would be like if after all the books were written she came out and said "Dumbledore loved wearing red socks every day, all the time" yet in the entire series of books never once mentioned Dumbledore wearing red socks are liking them. She had her chance to show that to be the case in her writings but did not do it. Claiming it after the fact is just ridiculous, and more importantly irrelevant.

If Dumbledore's sexual preference was not relevant enough to bring up in any of the books why the heck is it relevant enough to bring up now?

People should be ashamed of themselves for blowing this up, especially people who are legitimately trying to fight for equality for gay people and an end to sexual preference discrimination.

Marksman
Member

05-04-2007

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:38 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Marksman a private message Print Post    
Here is an example of the inappropriateness of the context.

What if Kalia said "Dumbledore is a womanizer" and Jeff said that is not right he might be saying I want to grab your honkers Hermione.

It is inappropriate regardless of the context or sexual orientation in question. The ignorance is people running around labeling Dumbledore as gay or straight. That is the real ignorance. That is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with Dumbledore as he existed in that world.

Sunshyne4u
Member

06-16-2003

Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 10:51 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sunshyne4u a private message Print Post    
called to task for saying it and Kalia should be called to task for repeating it

kalia repeated it AFTER DANI started the whole thing. She answered the door and let Shelly in, as she walked back Dani says hey Carebears, wasnt that harry potter guy gay?? (paraphr) (( with that little smirk she gets on her face))

then she sat back with a smile watching the fireworks. Dani is definitely her dad's daughter LOL

Kep421
Member

08-11-2001

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 4:28 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kep421 a private message Print Post    
"Whether Dumbledore likes men, women or toothbrushes is not relevant in any way..."

My first smile of the day...thanks Marksman!!

BTW... I agree with your post totally!!

Roxip
Member

01-29-2004

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 7:43 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Roxip a private message Print Post    
I hope this link works. I thought it was timely.

http://www.chickensoup.com/newsletter.asp
?newsid=article-daily-110715&utm_source=CSS_Email&utm_medium=
Bulletin&utm_campaign=daily


Kreno
Member

08-21-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 8:25 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kreno a private message Print Post    
Actually Marksman Dumbledore being gay does have a place in the book and there are reasons why it's important. I can't spoil the books, but Dumbledore falls in love with a boy that was not such a good wizard, and it makes Dumbledore more of a tarnished, more human character. (Tarnished because the boy wasn't a good wizard, not that he was gay)

And being gay should not be a "loaded question" it's just another great fact of Dumbledore.

And I have to add: the new movie is wonderful!!!!

Kminfinity
Member

06-29-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 8:59 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kminfinity a private message Print Post    
Marksman said:


quote:

My quick two cents.. It is ridiculous that JK Rowling came out after writing 10,000 pages of books and never mentioned or alluded to this fact.

That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story.




In an interview I read, Rowling mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) that she made the Dumbledore reveal after the fact precisely to make the point to her fans that you cannot know everything about a person "upfront." Plus, by making a beloved character gay in retrospect forces fans to re-evaluate their impressions. So, a fan who's thinking, "I love Dumbledore's character. I don't approve of gays" is forced to reconsider their beliefs. Of course, the way some react (initially?) is to reject the info, or to get mad at Rowling's statement (like Jeff)...

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-30-2000

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 9:19 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Dumbledore falls in love with a boy

I haven't read the books, but I'm troubled by this. He fell in love with a boy?? Please tell me it was when Dumbledore was young also, and not when he was the schoolmaster....

Christiii
Member

07-07-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 9:21 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Christiii a private message Print Post    
I like her thinking

Shenanagon
Member

07-28-2009

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:05 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Shenanagon a private message Print Post    
This is for you Karuuna lol

First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This elicited a huge reaction and prolonged ovation. So much so, it promoted Jo to say:


"If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have announced it years ago."
The question was: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?

JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.] ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"

Kreno
Member

08-21-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:19 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kreno a private message Print Post    
Yes Karuuna he was young as well.

Archiecat
Member

08-16-2006

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:29 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Archiecat a private message Print Post    
This thread has taken a life of its own.

Most of it now has nothing to do with Jeff or Dumbledore. It is a debate, albeit healthy, that seems to be much needed by its posters and readers (me included).

Jeff is a "whole package" just as we all are....with at least one serious flaw. Me too, You too, Dumbledore, too!

This outlet seems to be giving all of us a chance to vent on our delicate feelings about bias/prejudice/hate/tolerance/etc.

Perhaps the thread needs to be renamed and continued with its real context reflected.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-30-2000

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
thank you Shenanagon and Kreno!!

Csnog
Member

07-18-2002

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 10:56 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Csnog a private message Print Post    
Rowling said that she "envisioned" the character of Prof. Dumbledore as gay and that she intended the character of Gellert Grindelwald in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be Dumbledore's lover.

It didn't come about and she was happy to have him be more the grandfatherly type.

She never wrote him as being gay but "envisioned" him as being gay.

That he had fallen in love with Gellert Grindelwald, which was Dumbledore's "great tragedy".. Rowling did not explicitly state whether Grindelwald returned his affections... Rowling explained this further by elaborating on the motivations behind Dumbledore's flirtation with the idea of wizard domination of Muggles... "He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrustful of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual.... He led a celibate and a bookish life".

Sanfranjoshfan
Member

09-17-2000

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 11:58 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sanfranjoshfan a private message Print Post    
"That means it was wholly irrelevant to the story. Just like it would have been inappropriate for the story to portray Dumbedore as a Womanizer who slept around. It had no place in the story."

JK Rowling is the author..she creates characters and she created a gay character in Dumbledore. Of course it had a place in the story...it is her story and she envisioned him that way.

It's unfortunate but many parents feel the same way you do when a son or daughter comes out of the closet......some parents feel that suddenly their child "has no place in their family story".

The problem is they ARE a part of that family and they are the same people that had always been a part of that family. The only thing that changed was that the parents used their own prejudices to target one of their own children.

Revealing that Dumbledore is gay is just as relevant as it would have been to reveal that he is straight.

We gay folks exist and we are part of society regardless of when we reveal our sexual orientation....just like Dumbledore.

The_beav
Member

08-07-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send The_beav a private message Print Post    
Anyone else get frustrated when reading these posts and go to click the "like" button, only to remember you're not on Facebook?

I find it presumptuous of anyone to tell an author that her vision of a character has no place in a story. I find it offensive for a houseguest to so strongly object to this particular vision. YMMV

Archiecat
Member

08-16-2006

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:26 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Archiecat a private message Print Post    
I find it offensive for a houseguest to so strongly object to this particular vision.

First Amendment rights rule.......yours and his......

The_beav
Member

08-07-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send The_beav a private message Print Post    
That is why it is just an opinion ...... hence "I find" rather then the more definative "it is offensive". I am just disappointed that Jeff has failed to evolve after his earlier season.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-30-2000

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
I am not disappointed in Jeff, I don't know him.

What I am disappointed in is a society that inculcates these damaging beliefs in people.

After all, it wasn't problematic for Dumbledore to be a single heterosexual male headmaster at a school that served girls!

There's no reason to make him into a deviant because he is gay.

It just pains me that we haven't yet mostly eradicated these ridiculous beliefs about gays. Really pains me.

Kswheels
Member

06-30-2005

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:50 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kswheels a private message Print Post    
Can we just clear something up? This isn't a first amendment issue. The first amendment protects you from the government. It protects you from being arrested or otherwise silenced by the government. It doesn't protect Jeff from CBS, or anyone who objects to his views. I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not saying that anyone has the right to retaliate for speech that they don't like. I'm simply saying that it isn't the first amendment that stops them.