Isn't it something that, arguably, Al Gore has done more to better the world since 2000 than president Bush?

Heather Armstrong recently referred to a small article by Christopher Lee, a contributor to BYU's NewsNet. It's an unknown writing about a tired subject, but the messages are solid: people often hear just what they want, and that's a big problem. I've never touched a Harry Potter book and I've seen only one movie, but this isn't about any of that, really.

The article is an opinion piece on the confirmation of the sexuality of the Harry Potter character Dumbledore. At Carnegie Hall on October 19, J. K. Rowling took questions from her audience. In her reply to the question of whether Dumbledore would ever find true love, she stated that Dumbledore is gay. It was no announcement, and it looks unlikely that Rowling had any motive in this decision other than the development of a character. She has always thought of Dumbledore as gay, so I doubt it was a gift to those fighting for gay acceptance.

Christopher Lee wrote:

What irritates me is that in one fell swoop Rowling took a wonderful story enjoyed by children and adults alike, and transformed it into an argument for gay rights. Of course, as the author, J.K. Rowling can do whatever she likes with regards to the Harry Potter universe; but just because she likes picturing a gay wizard does not mean that every other reader must do the same. That used to be the wonderful thing about reading. I used to be able to read a story and make any conclusions I wished.

That last sentence made me laugh. You can still do that, but the characters in the story you're reading aren't yours. How would it be different if his homosexuality had been explicitly stated in the text? And as for the sentence "That used to be the wonderful thing about reading", I would really like to hear a detailed explanation of what you mean.

And I don't think that Rowling was arguing for gay rights. She simply mentioned a fact about one of her creations.

Christopher goes on to say:

Dumbledore is gay, not because he was attracted to other men, but because J.K. Rowling wanted him to be gay. And now society expects us to accept that because Dumbledore is gay, homosexuality is no longer immoral; and anyone who thinks so is an intolerant bigot.

Since when was heterosexual the default for literary characters? Irregardless of the morality debate, it is true that not all people are straight. So, though it is more likely that a random character is heterosexual, it is not certain, and assuming as much might be a mistake.

As I just wrote, in my arguments so far, I have not considered the morality of homosexuality. The facts of literature and common sense stand above that discussion.

And the second half of Christopher's above quote is where I find the biggest offense. "Homosexuality is no longer immoral," he writes. I am taking the side of neither Christians or non-Christians (the category with which I side is irrelevant). But, OK, when was it immoral? This is his personal opinion, which I guess is based on the Scripture of God as he, Christopher, believes. But, unfortunately for some, the Bible was purposely left out of the Constitution. Ironically perhaps, I thank God for this. Society is ruled secularly, as it should, for a few reasons. The most important reason for this is so that no religion will dominate the people at large. Notice that I say religion, not Christianity. I am on no personal attack—here I only aim at those general threats against freedom. A person may believe that homosexuality is evil and will lead to a bestial society full of crimes against nature. That's fine. I could believe that eating someone's brains will make me smarter, black people aren't quite human, or that an outie belly button indicates an evil person. As long as those opinions don't affect the law.

I also think that if Christians are what they claim to be, they wouldn't want homosexuality to be illegal in any way. The inclusion of laws forbidding acts deemed immoral solely by the terms of Christianity precludes the defining characteristic of the faith: choice. Forcing anyone to believe or even to simply act out or partake in a belief in various forms goes against the ultimate decision that is becoming Christian, or being saved. When a person or group wants this—to force tradition of a religion on people—their motives have nothing to do with religion. History has taught this lesson over and over and over and over.

The beauty of this nation is that essentially, thanks to a few pieces of old paper, society is secular and free. We cannot have one without the other.

But, Christopher Lee, I know you probably weren't arguing for federally mandated or state-sponsored anti-homosexual laws. You were just stating your opinion about homosexuality in general, and that's OK. I'm not arguing about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to be gay. But your article reminded me how opinions like yours often devolve into the kind of thinking I describe above. I'm very glad you have your opinion—that we all do—and I'm not arguing your specific point. I'm saying that I disagree with you, yes, but not on any moral or spiritual basis.

He clarifies his position:

Let me explain exactly how I feel about this. I don’t hate homosexuals. I don’t hate people for how they choose to live their lives. However, I can and do view certain choices as immoral. That does not make me or anyone else who feels the same way a bigot. Though nowadays, we not only have to accept people’s choice to be gay, we have to celebrate and encourage them. Before we know it, it will be pedophiles and heroin addicts as the lovable heroes of sitcoms. The media will whine about their rights, and any attempt to condemn such behavior will be decried as bigotry.

Really? Pedophiles? You are willing to compare gay people with pedophiles? The leap between homosexuality and pedophilia is vast. We don't need to sensationalize to get our points across. I see what you mean, though. How are we to choose just how far a person can go in their personal freedoms? Well, as always, I look to John Stuart Mill for the answer: utilitarianism. That is, everyone is free to do as they wish, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of another. Still, we find wavy lines when trying to define laws by such a standard. But I think it's the closest we can come to definitively pinning down an answer. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the goal, and as much freedom as possible is the foundation.

But back to your point about bigotry. Whether or not you're a bigot depends on you, specifically. I know you dislike homosexuality, but are you tolerant of it? From your words, it sounds like you aren't. So it should be perfectly acceptable that some would think of you as a bigot. Their opinions are just as valid as yours.

Christopher ends his article with this:

J.K. Rowling, you shouldn’t have messed with the story. The series is finished; the last book is on the shelves. Leave it alone and allow each individual reader the freedom to make their own conclusions. Oh, and for those of us who don’t jump up and down with jubilation over your fictional character’s sexual preference, show a little tolerance and allow us the right to think what we will of Dumbledore.

Again, I don't see much sense in telling the author to leave her story alone. She has felt for a while that one of the characters she created is gay. After the question was answered, Rowling even stated that if she had known there would be positive reception of the character's sexuality, she would have disclosed it earlier. She wasn't expecting you to "jump up and down with jubilation". There was no political motive and it wasn't impulsive. There was no grand announcement, but it was mentioned while answering the question of a fan. The readers were asking for more than the stories of the books provided, so the author was kind enough to oblige. The fans asked for it. J. K. Rowling elaborated on her own creation as a favor to her readers. I don't think she should be blamed for it.

Perhaps you're not actually upset about Rowling disturbing the Harry Potter universe for you. I think that you're primarily upset that a major character in the most popular book series written is gay, also implying that homosexuals can be articulate, ethical beings with something to add to the world. Sure, he's fictional, but his character reflects reality. Maybe if we dig deeper into this we find that you really are a bigot, or at least have intolerant beliefs. Jaime Allen of Richmond, VA wrote a letter to the editor in response to Christopher Lee's opinion:

You don't have to hate gays to be a bigot; all you have to do is doubt their capacity to make moral choices. And when you lump them into the same category as pedophiles and heroin addicts, you are definitely doing that. If this topic is uncomfortable for you to think about, don't just take the lazy way out and grumble about how rude it is for Rowling to remind you that gay people exist.

I think that's a good point. Her entire letter is here, under the title "Complex Dumbledore".

And, I don't really want to be insulting, Christopher, but the latter half of your final sentence seems to be a cheap trick of words in order to end on an inappropriate bang. Those kinds of things pollute discussion.

Unfortunately, the views of a person often lead away from the more important points of the issue.