Happy Halloweeen!

First Tinky Winky, and now this! The horror! THE HORROR!

So, apparently Dumbledore is gay. Huh.

For those who don't know (are there such people?), Albus Dumbledore is the headmaster of Hogwarts, the fictional school of wizardry in J. K. Rowling's wildly popular Harry Potter books. Though the series is over, and this particular revelation never came up in any of the books, Rowling revealed this tidbit during a recent question and answer session. That's not what I really want to talk about though, as I couldn't care less. What's interesting, and worth discussion, is the response this has gotten, especially from the same people who already demonize the books for (supposedly) promoting witchcraft.

For one, there's this guy, whose attitude can best be described as neanderthal. He actually ends his post with this:

"I think it’s time that any Potter material in your home meet Mr. Trash Can. Unless you want your children to become like Dumblequeer. Yuck. What a dirty trick."

Really? Did he really just say that? And he's serious? ... Really? Like, really, in reality, the really real world? In a first world nation in the modern era, someone who is literate enough to post something online actually thinks things like that?

...

Really?

Moving on, "anti-Potter crusader" Laura Mallory is quoted in an ABC News piece as saying (my emphasis):

My prayer is that parents would wake up, that the subtle way this is presented as harmless fantasy would be exposed for what it really is -- a subtle indoctrination into anti-Christian values. [...] The kids are being introduced to a cult and witchcraft practices. [...]
A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one. That's proven, medically.

Um... No. No it hasn't been "proven". People with agendas and no respect for truth often make that claim, however. I'll not even bother to point out how stupid the claims of witchcraft are (here's a hint: magic isn't real and it never was, ergo there is no threat from it). As for the anti-Christian claim, well, given that nothing about the books is directly anti-Christian, and the fact that this claim stems almost entirely from the ridiculous witchcraft argument (witchcraft being tied to Satan in Christian mythology... though having no such connection in any other, it's worth noting), this is also a load of crap. Some people are just angry and self righteous and they'll find something to gripe about no matter what.

SIDE RANT #1: This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If your agenda is based on a lie, then why are you pursuing it? Really, if you have to lie to make your point of view come out on top, then why is that your point of view? Obviously it's wrong or you wouldn't have to lie, or cherry pick the evidence, or anything of that sort. If your position is in the right, then the evidence will back it up. In fact, your position should be based on the evidence, not the other way around, if you have any intellectual integrity at all.

Somewhat saner is the post titled "Turns Out Dumbledore Was More Flawed Than I Thought" on Redstate.com. The author has a laugh at the way "

Rowling really pulled one over on [him]", then unfortunately goes on to imply Rowling is a fascist. Odd. The real kicker in this case is the following passage:

I wonder where her tolerance was for those readers who have beliefs different from hers. Where was the respect for them? Don't they too have a right to avoid and hide themselves away from ideas and themes they disagree with? I guess not. After all, there is no crime in creating an endearing story that is acceptable and appealing to many, and then pulling the rug out from under the readers later by revealing some disconcerting facts about a beloved character.

This fails to make sense on several levels. First of all, did he actually suggest that hiding from ideas you don't like is a good way to live? That's exactly the sort of behavior that leads people to say things like the troglodyte mentioned above. It also leads to the kind of super-limited world view that creates extremists and (if carried much further) suicide bombers. Secondly, is a guy on a Web site that actively rails against gay rights actually whining about intolerance? Furthermore, is he really whining about someone being intolerant of his intolerance? That's like those Christian activists claiming that life in the US is so hard for them despite being in the majority and living under a government that that is headed by an openly fundamentalist President and is heavily influenced by Christian lobbyists. It just doesn't make sense.

SIDE RANT #2: This reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, when people get after me for saying something like "I'm only intolerant of people who are intolerant" (which amounts to a slogan, by the way, hardly an exhaustive and nuanced mission statement) by claiming that it's a self defeating position, since I would have to be intolerant of myself. It doesn't work that way. My personal intolerance is in reaction to the behaviors and actions of others, it is not in reaction to something as trivial as race, religion, or sexual preference. I'm not going to welcome people who actively oppress and harm others with open arms simply because to do so would be "tolerant". I'm not going to be tolerant of the kid who spit in my face in high school for no reason either, nor will I tolerate the guy who broke into my car back in 2000, if I ever meet him. If your intolerance is for a valid reason, then more power to you.

Now, to be fair, there's some stupidity on the other side as well. Comments like "this is a victory for homosexuality the world over" miss the point entirely as well. So what is the point? Here we have a beloved character in a crazy popular book series, and after the fact we find out he's gay. Does this change our opinion of him? Why? The guy above who claimed that Rowling tricked him was actually on to something, but for the wrong reasons. The fact is that the whole time, doing everything that he did, Dumbledore was gay and we loved him anyway. The things he did haven't changed, he isn't a different character than he was before this revelation. In short, him being gay doesn't really matter. It wasn't mentioned in the novels because it didn't matter, except as a bit of back story that helped determine how he ended up the character he was.

If you see a burning building with someone trapped on the second floor, and some guy rushes into the building and saves them at great risk to themselves, then that person is a hero. Would finding out that person is gay change your opinion of what they did? It shouldn't, not any more than finding out that they're Jewish or black or a communist should (well, maybe the communist thing, though only because that's a conscious choice). The reason is that none of those things have any bearing on how good or bad a person is. Now, had that person turned out to be a murderer or rapist, sure, but then those are conscious actions that cause actual harm, and that's different.

So the point is, it doesn't really matter. Get over it already.

P.S.: In reference to the title of this post, I'm referring to Jerry Falwell's odd claims that Tinky Winky, a "Teletubby", was secretly gay. I was reminded of this by an article by one Mark Finkelstein in which he writes:

"It’s a children’s show, folks. To think we would be putting sexual innuendo in a children’s show is kind of outlandish."
-- spokesman for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., which licenses Teletubby characters in the United States.

Yeah, outlandish. I mean, how could anyone imagine there could be undisclosed gay characters in pop-culture materials for children? That Jerry Falwell, what a Christian conservative crank!
[...]
What's that? It now turns out that Dumbledore is gay? That guy who was the headmaster at Harry Potter's Hogwarts? Author J.K. Rowling said so herself?Oh, well, that's different.
[...]
Somewhere, Jerry Falwell is smiling.

OK, it's sad to think that he believes he scored a point with this. It's sadder to think that believes that a character turning out to be gay - after doing nothing that would suggest his sexuality in any way, and never being in a situation in which that information was relevant - is the same thing as "sexual innuendo". Falwell was a blow hard, he always was, and he still is (yes, I know he's dead, but until we all agree to ignore everything he ever said, it still counts).

P.P.S.: I was reading the comments on a related Digg.com posting earlier and someone pointed out that the source for a great deal of the worlds best religious art, Leonardo Da Vinci, was gay as well. Someone responded that it's in vogue right now to insist that great historical figures were gay, and that Da Vinci wasn't.

Hate to burst your bubble, but he was. Along with a number of other clues (including his own writings) just take a look at his attempts at rendering the female anatomy versus his works depicting male anatomy. It's likely that he never saw a naked woman up close, but he was certainly up on his men. He's still one of the greatest artistic and scientific minds the world has ever produced.