• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

She didn't "announce" it. In fact, Rowling supposedly never intended to make a fuss over it. The question of Dumbledore's sexuality never came up in the books, and she obviously didn't feel it needed to be stated.

The only reason we know about it is because a fan asked during an interview if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love, and Rowling simply responded that "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." Of course, there is still a question of if she would have said so if asked the same question before finishing all the books, but I don't really see why not. *shrugs*
If she had "always thought" of him as gay, then I don't think it's too unreasonable to wonder why that never came up in the books. No doubt, upon hearing that, some major Harry Potter fans would wonder, "Was that hinted at in the books?" People, whether they support homosexuality or not, would look for evidence one way or another (saying either, "Here it is," or "No way, this disproves it"). It's not hard to believe that her remark was intended, at least in part, to artificially generate interest in her books.
 

Estellise

peachy
I'm not gay,or even bi.But I think it doesn't matter who you love as long as its true love and your not dating because of looks,but because of personality and character.
~My philosophy
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
If she had "always thought" of him as gay, then I don't think it's too unreasonable to wonder why that never came up in the books. No doubt, upon hearing that, some major Harry Potter fans would wonder, "Was that hinted at in the books?" People, whether they support homosexuality or not, would look for evidence one way or another (saying either, "Here it is," or "No way, this disproves it"). It's not hard to believe that her remark was intended, at least in part, to artificially generate interest in her books.

Because an old mans love interest isn't what the story is about? :p
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Fans do want to learn about such stupid facts though :p
No fans don't, Fanatics do. I've been a fan of BattleTech even becoming a demo rep for the game, also a big fan of DragonLance novels. When I met the writers I never asked things like 'Did Flint Fireforge ever have a girlfriend?' There's being a fan then there's being a Trekkie!:p

Okay breaking news, Federal appeals court rules DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) unconstitutional!
Slick, now the state Governments get to be the bad guys!
 
Last edited:

Psychic

Really and truly
Neither has whether he has been in love or not!
The real question is why didn't the author answer the question.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Asking a question to an author =/= asking a question to an actor. Rowling never did say answer if Dumbledore (Why does Chrome's spell check not flag Dumbledore?) was in love. Shatner is just complaining about Star Trek's fanbase being too old for its demographic.
I didn't bother to quote the part you are asking about because it wasn't relevant/I ddin't think you'd care, but since you all really want to know, she said yes, he was in love with Grindlewald. She says this may have impacted why Dumbledore didn't notice what Grindlewald was up to the entire time (ie because he loved him (and because the headmaster always saw the good in people)).


If she had "always thought" of him as gay, then I don't think it's too unreasonable to wonder why that never came up in the books. No doubt, upon hearing that, some major Harry Potter fans would wonder, "Was that hinted at in the books?" People, whether they support homosexuality or not, would look for evidence one way or another (saying either, "Here it is," or "No way, this disproves it"). It's not hard to believe that her remark was intended, at least in part, to artificially generate interest in her books.
Because authors don't all find it necessary to provide the sexuality of every character (especially in a cast of over 100, like HP), the same way authors don't provide every character's exact height, eyeglass prescription, or favourite food. There is never an opportunity for it to come up in the books because Dumbledore isn't attracted to anyone during the books. His interactions with Grindlewald took place long before the events of the book, and whoever told the kids about what happened likely didn't know how Dumbledore felt, or thought it was a private matter and wasn't the kids' business. Dumbledore was very private about his personal life, so I'm sure most people had no idea.

Seriously, a character's sexual preference is about as relevant as their favourite food. Until that character meets someone they are attracted to or sees their favourite food, it doesn't need to be brought up. Our obsession with people's sexuality is stupid.

But yes, fans may then go through the book and looks for hints indicating Dumbledore's sexual preferences/favourite food. Fans love doing that, finding new things to look for, like easter eggs. But mostly likely someone who never cared for or read the books will not suddenly start reading them just because they found out Dumbledore's gay, whether out of spite or excitement. It's possible, but unlikely.


No fans don't, Fanatics do. I've been a fan of BattleTech even becoming a demo rep for the game, also a big fan of DragonLance novels. When I met the writers I never asked things like 'Did Flint Fireforge ever have a girlfriend?' There's being a fan then there's being a Trekkie!:p
A lot of HP fans are pretty damn hardcore, actually. Also, it's pretty obvious that the questions you as a married man have are likely going to be pretty damn different from the questions a teenage girl 20 years your junior will have.



Also A+ on realizing how dumb DOMA is!

~Psychic
 
Last edited:

GetOutOfBox

Original Series Fan
I think the fact that your own sexual preference really has no effect on other people should be sufficient to say that the decision should be your own. Sure, gay people shouldn't be allowed to sexually-harass people, just as heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed to do the same, the same thing really applies to all concerns regarding your interactions with homosexuals. They should be restricted by the same laws and social constraints that restrict heterosexuals. I have no problem being friends with a person who happens to be homosexual, though perhaps I would have a problem if they openly thought of me in a sexual light. However, that doesn't mean I'd have a problem with the concept of homosexuality, just the concept of a person expressing unwanted sexual interest in me. As you can see, the same thing applies to hetero-friendships. If a man and a woman were friends, and the man (or woman) began expressing unwanted sexual interest to the other, the reaction would be the same. The reason most people are against homosexuality is because they don't fully grasp the fact that their feelings are not regarding homosexuality itself, but the thought of homosexuals committing various unwanted sexual advances towards them (in various ways). People say they feel uncomfortable with the fact that another person of the same sex may be fantasizing about them, but really most people would feel the exact same way at the thought of a person who they themselves do not think of in a sexual light, thinking extremely sexual thoughts about them.

Another problem with society being more open to homosexuality is that the media has implanted the concept of homosexuals being hypersexuals into the minds of the populace (not through any conspiracy, but just through endorsing stereotypes in tv shows for comedy, for example). As a result, people often think of homosexuals (especially homosexual men, to whom most of the prejudice is directed towards), as people who are incapable of seeing a man and not imagining having sex with him, as well as being uncomfortably open about these fantasies to men around them (i.e the gay clothes salesman in Rush Hour 3). In reality, plenty of homosexual people are just as discreet about their feelings/fantasies as you'd expect a heterosexual man to be regarding a woman.

Now, I did say earlier that a man might be just as unnerved at the thought of a woman, to whom he is in no way attracted too, fantasizing about him. This may be not entirely true, but this discrepancy is again, the result of popular societal opinion regarding homosexuality. Society expects men to take the dominant role in sexuality. They are supposed to be the ones doing the courting, and most importantly, they are the one's "doing" the woman, in the sense that it is the man in charge of sex, and that the man obtaining pleasure is more important than the woman (though in recent years, it is becoming more common for sex to be for both partners pleasure, the man being expected to satisfy the woman, just as much vice versa). Therefore, the concept of a man playing a submissive role is considering degrading to his masculinity; it makes him less of a man. Due to these common feelings, a man's reaction to another man fantasizing about him is disturbing, he feels as if he's lost some of his "manliness" for being the subject of such desires, and hence has to regain it through aggression, and distancing himself from the man allegedly fantasizing about him. This is further proved by the observance that women tend to be less bothered by the thought of another woman fantasizing about them, then men do. This is because many women have been raised to believe themselves to be in the submissive role, so to have another women fantasize about them takes nothing away from their dignity, and in fact could increase their own feeling of being beautiful and desirable.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Bringing this topic back up with news of DOMA ruled unconstitutional again by the Federal Court of NY.

Also, legalization of gay marriage blocked by opponents in the Washington state.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
Regarding Rowling and Dumbledore, I have to wonder if there's a transcript of the interview online. I feel like the actual wording she and the fan who asked used matters a lot here, because it might seem like a jump to go from "has he loved?" to "I think he's gay", but it might've been fairly relevant in context. Also, "I've always thought he was gay" isn't the same thing as "he is gay", although since this is the author saying it, it's probably true either way. But it gives the impression that she clearly only thought about it as a little extra tidbit about him that wasn't important enough to be touched upon in the books. Lots of fans have their own ideas about character sexualities, even if they're totally random and irrelevant, or if the fans never really feel like doing anything with said interpretations. Authors probably have them too, but don't usually see fit to disclose them, since it'd likely influence how fans choose to enjoy the series in question. Nothing wrong with any of that.

Also, Prop 8 is still out in California! Opponents of gay marriage appealed to the 9th Circuit Court when it got smacked down and repealed as unconstitutional, and they upheld the ruling. It's apparently planned to appeal to the final venue they have of getting it reinstated, which is the Supreme Court, because apparently they really are that desperate. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, or decides to give it a shot and upholds the ruling again, gay marriage will be legal in California for the foreseeable future with no good way of taking it back again.
 

Kacho

You are next.
Another problem with society being more open to homosexuality is that the media has implanted the concept of homosexuals being hypersexuals into the minds of the populace (not through any conspiracy, but just through endorsing stereotypes in tv shows for comedy, for example). As a result, people often think of homosexuals (especially homosexual men, to whom most of the prejudice is directed towards), as people who are incapable of seeing a man and not imagining having sex with him, as well as being uncomfortably open about these fantasies to men around them (i.e the gay clothes salesman in Rush Hour 3). In reality, plenty of homosexual people are just as discreet about their feelings/fantasies as you'd expect a heterosexual man to be regarding a woman.

If you're talking about media's failure to create original characters but enforces stereotype, we can totally make a new thread for that. I mean, I am Asian and not even taking sexuality into question, I still have stereotypes to deal with from people who thinks what they see on tv or movie is true.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Regarding Rowling and Dumbledore, I have to wonder if there's a transcript of the interview online. I feel like the actual wording she and the fan who asked used matters a lot here, because it might seem like a jump to go from "has he loved?" to "I think he's gay", but it might've been fairly relevant in context. Also, "I've always thought he was gay" isn't the same thing as "he is gay", although since this is the author saying it, it's probably true either way.

I found one, from the Leaky Cauldron:

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!"

So basically, she did reply to the question saying 'I always thought Dumbledore was gay' but for the purpose of talking about Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald, which answers the question. I mean, if she had just said 'YES. Yes he was in love once. Most people are in love at least once, sometime in their lives. Next question?' wouldn't that be a Mathematician's Answer? I mean, sure the question asked if he was in love, but it definately implies that they want to know about that love, otherwise it would be a rather obvious question. So she opted to talk about his feelings for Grindelwald, which were related to the story even. And to do that, it made sense to brace the audience by saying 'he's gay' before providing a man as his love interest.

And she has also provided extra-story details about

- Professor McGonagall's relationship with a muggle man
- Luna marrying the son of a the author of Fantastic beasts
- Neville's wife
- Draco Malfoy's wife
- George Weasley's wife

So Rowling likes talking about relationships that have nothing to do with the story - Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was only one of those. (I mean, this is an author that fleshed out the entire second generation of her characters and such a comprehensive family tree of ancestors that came before them that it linked Voldemort and Harry as distant cousins...) In short, Dumbledore's relationship and his sexuality was not an unusual thing for her to talk about.
 
Last edited:

Sonic Boom

@JohanSSB4 Twitter
It's not total confirmation by any stretch, but a study done in Italy concluded that there is a consistency between homosexual men and the greater fecundity of their maternal relatives.

Methods.  Using a questionnaire-based approach, which included also the Big Five Questionnaire personality inventory based on the Big Five theory, we investigated fecundity in 161 female European subjects and scrutinized possible influences, including physiological, behavioral, and personality factors. We compared 61 female probands who were either mothers or maternal aunts of homosexual men. One hundred females who were mothers or aunts of heterosexual men were used as controls.

Main Outcome Measures.  Personality traits, retrospective physiological and clinical data, behavior and opinions on fecundity-related issues were assessed and analyzed to illustrate possible effects on fecundity between probands and control females.

Results.  Our analysis showed that both mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men show increased fecundity compared with corresponding maternal female relatives of heterosexual men. A two-step statistical analysis, which was based on t-tests and multiple logistic regression analysis, showed that mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men (i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.

Conclusions.  Our findings are based on a small sample and would benefit from a larger replication, however they suggest that if sexually antagonistic genetic factors that induce homosexuality in males exist, the factors might be maintained in the population by contributing to increased fecundity greater reproductive health, extraversion, and a generally relaxed attitude toward family and social values in females of the maternal line of homosexual men.

Put simply, the more attractive the maternal relative is to men, and the more relaxed they are to social norms, the greater chance male offspring from that bloodline has to being a homosexual.

It definitely needs a greater number of subjects to test this on, but if such a hypothetical result is consistent with this study, it could shake up some foundations pertaining to how homosexuality is perceived today.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Soooo date the 10 and marry the 7 if you want to lessen the change your children will be gay? That is weird science! I'm not disclaiming it just saying those findings seem improbable!
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Bulbanews said:
Webmaster Archaic of Bulbagarden announced today a new policy against discrimination, hatred and intolerance toward lesbian, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, queers and questioning members of the Bulbagarden community. Many people, even among those who support gay rights, may feel that this is out of place and that Bulbagarden, as a Pokémon fansite; shouldn't be taking a stance on political issues.

But our new policy isn't about politics.

Our new policy is about the teenagers and young adults who begin to realize they're "different". The ones who are afraid anyone will find out what they are, because they live in a place where being what they are can get them shrugged, beaten, and even killed. The ones who have already lost their family, or fear they will lose their family. The ones who can't bear to go to school anymore. The far too many who have been driven to end their lives because of this intolerance.

The policy is about the hundreds of Pokémon fans who experience this everyday, or who experienced it in their past, and who come online to enjoy their favorite games, only to find that even here, they cannot escape being mocked, attacked, condemned and told they don't deserve equal rights. To find that even here, trying to play the games or watch the anime they love, what they identify as is being used as an insult.

Saying those fans deserve to enjoy Bulbagarden as much as any other fans is not politics. Saying that they won't be able to enjoy Bulbagarden as much as any other fan, if we tolerate people saying homosexuality is a disease, or immoral, is not politics. It's being humane.

Going out of your way, on a Pokémon forum, to hound teenagers who are struggling with who they are to tell them they are going to hell; that they shouldn't be able to marry; that they suffer from a disease? That's not about being who you are, it's not about trying to live your life - it's about trying to tell others who they have a right to be, and how they should live their lives. That is politics. Letting it happen is politics. And it's the bare truth that this sort of politics doesn't belong on a Pokémon fansite.

At the end of the day, we don't feel that choosing between these two sides is playing politics.

Quite a different philosphy toward the matter than the administration of SPPF usually has, isn't it? I almost wish SPPF would issue a statement like this, but we could say SPPF doesn't even need to do something similar. I think Bulbagarden has a system where a mod can give permission to have a debate about homosexuality, just closely monitored and without insult, and we have the moderated debate system, so it's pretty much the same.
 
Last edited:
bulba said:
Saying that they won't be able to enjoy Bulbagarden as much as any other fan, if we tolerate people saying homosexuality is a disease, or immoral, is not politics. It's being humane.

Going out of your way, on a Pokémon forum, to hound teenagers who are struggling with who they are to tell them they are going to hell; that they shouldn't be able to marry; that they suffer from a disease? That's not about being who you are, it's not about trying to live your life - it's about trying to tell others who they have a right to be, and how they should live their lives.
While I think bulbagarden has the best of intentions, the first underlined part is completely out of line. If the second underlined part is tied to the "going out of your way", then I agree with it. But who gave bulbagarden the right to decide my religious views? If they have the right to believe my religion is incorrect, I have as much right to believe that homosexuality is Biblically immoral. If they have the right to publicly post that my religion is false, I have as much right to publicly post that their lifestyle is a Biblical sin.

time to fire up that years old bulbagarden account and rip some holes

[edit]
drat
its locked
:p
 
Last edited:

Sonic Boom

@JohanSSB4 Twitter
Soooo date the 10 and marry the 7 if you want to lessen the change your children will be gay?

Perhaps "attractive" was the wrong term to use. I guess fertility and promiscuity would be better ones?

If the woman was healthy in reproduction and had a lesser interest, though not a lack of, in having children, that fecundity is carried over to male offspring.

As for the "Date the 10, marry the 7" quip, the mother doesn't even have to be the carrier of that trait, according to the study. The mother could be the complete opposite of a promiscuous woman, but if her sister is the walking definition of such a woman, the trait still has a chance of being passed regardless, because the mother has the trait, but the trait is just dormant. So with that in mind, it's just a "calculated risk," so to speak.

But this is all Genetic Connect 4 at the moment. A larger selection of test subjects needs to be used to form a better conclusion.
 

Psychic

Really and truly
Quite a different philosphy toward the matter than the administration of SPPF usually has, isn't it? I almost wish SPPF would issue a statement like this, but we could say SPPF doesn't even need to do something similar. I think Bulbagarden has a system where a mod can give permission to have a debate about homosexuality, just closely monitored and without insult, and we have the moderated debate system, so it's pretty much the same.
I couldn't tell where on Bulba this was posted. My point is mainly referring to if this was posted on the front page. If it's just part of the rules in whatever their equivalent to the Debate forum is, then I'd be a bit less critical. I'm also just generally unsure why they're going on about this being a political move, but it's not, but it is.

I'm not sure what I think of this, not necessarily from a staff standpoint.

It's great that Bulbagarden wants to foster a community that embraces people of different sexualities and won't allow that to be grounds for discrimination. However, personally I just assumed that went without saying, the same way it goes without saying that you shouldn't discriminate based on race on gender. I find that in making an announcement about it, you're calling unnecessary attention to the issue, possible making victims feel self-conscious and aggravating aggressors. Obviously I can't say for certain since this sort of announcement would have no personal affect on me, but it just isn't something that feels necessary (or at least it shouldn't be in this day and age, yet apparently enough had happened to warrant this).


While I think bulbagarden has the best of intentions, the first underlined part is completely out of line. If the second underlined part is tied to the "going out of your way", then I agree with it. But who gave bulbagarden the right to decide my religious views? If they have the right to believe my religion is incorrect, I have as much right to believe that homosexuality is Biblically immoral. If they have the right to publicly post that my religion is false, I have as much right to publicly post that their lifestyle is a Biblical sin.
Where did you get that they're saying what you can and cannot believe? They're talking about what you can and cannot say. The article is only referencing people who "hound" and tell gay teenagers "you are going to hell." Hounding someone and doggedly decrying that they are going to hell is harassment and bullying, which is a pretty damn awful thing to do. Frankly, it isn't allowed here, either for obvious reasons.

You can believe homosexuals go to hell if you want, that's your thing. But the second you start telling them, as a matter of fact, that they are absolutely going to hell, you are getting into hate speech territory. That's why I can't say "mattj, my religion says you are going to hell, so you are going to burn and rot and die and burn again eternally, so go die now" even if that's what my religion tells me to say.

So yeah, it boils down to "believe what you want, but don't bully."
 
Last edited:
I've actually PM'd a mod about it and we're having a conversation about it. It turns out that I hadn't misunderstood the story. They will punish anyone who speaks out against homosexuality in any part of the site other than in their Serious Discussion forum "The Campaign Bus". The reason being they don't want any serious conversations like that taking place outside of that forum on their site. It doesn't actually have much to do with homosexuality. Its that they want all of those conversations to take place in that one forum. I actually don't have much of a problem with this. It seems to make good sense. I haven't yet heard back about whether or not this new position will apply to people who post against Christianity or any other groups. If it doesn't that in itself would be a problem and fly quite blatantly against their goal of "striving for equality".

Oh, and yeah, that second line I underlined up there definitely is talking about people who hound homosexuals. That's obviously wrong. But the first line I underlined didn't mention anything about hounding, which is what confused me. But because the mod has said that people can still speak freely in that one forum, I'm fine with that. As long as its applied fairly, that is.

[edit]
It is applied fairly.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
While I think bulbagarden has the best of intentions, the first underlined part is completely out of line. If the second underlined part is tied to the "going out of your way", then I agree with it. But who gave bulbagarden the right to decide my religious views? If they have the right to believe my religion is incorrect, I have as much right to believe that homosexuality is Biblically immoral. If they have the right to publicly post that my religion is false, I have as much right to publicly post that their lifestyle is a Biblical sin.

time to fire up that years old bulbagarden account and rip some holes
Religion, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice. If my religion said that people who black people are evil, I shouldn't be allowed to rant on a Pokémon message board about my religion backed up racism.

What kind of holes were you planning to rip?
 
I'm glad you believe that homosexuality isn't a choice. I, and many others, including many researchers and homosexuals, believe it is. I'd agree that "if" homosexuality wasn't a choice there would be a difference. But I believe it is a choice. As I've said before, even if homosexual urges are genetic that doesn't mean we are robots that must respond to our programming. People have genetic urges to do all kinds of things like rape, murder, steal, have sex with minors, but the fact that those urges are genetic in nature doesn't mean that we're slaves to those urges or that those urges are acceptable. Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is acceptable, I don't understand why anyone would believe that anyone is a slave to their sexual urges, or that anyone can't choose to ignore or modify their sexual urges if they so wish.

As I see it, if your religion really does teach that black people are evil, I'd love to hear what you have to say and prove how much of an idiot you would (hypothetically here) be. Why wouldn't you desire open dialogue in a situation like that? If such a belief is reasonable, the facts will back it up. If its not, the facts won't. Are you afraid that a racist could prove their point and you couldn't disprove them?

The point I was getting at, and that thankfully they explained was the case, was that Christians and any other group deserves the same protections they were publicly affording homosexuals. I agree that homosexuals are regularly mocked and ridiculed and bullied and that they may very well need direct protection like they were talking about, but so do many other groups.
 
Last edited:
Top