Wednesday, October 24, 2007

It's Okay to Say It's Not Okay

After reading a well-written article about why there is no reason to be upset about JK Rowling’s announcement of the homosexuality of Albus Dumbledore, I thought it was important to give a voice to the rational opposition of homosexuality, and why to people like us, the ramifications of JK Rowling’s announcement are rather large. To begin, I think I should further clarify what I mean as rational opposition.
Rational opposition does not mean hate, intolerance, mistreatment, or discrimination. It means a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong based on laws set by God and unchangeable by society or scriptural interpretation. It also means an opposition to teaching children and youth that homosexuality is an appropriate alternate lifestyle. And last, it may go as far as to feel that many forms of media expose viewers and readers to homosexual characters or situations in order to gradually introduce the lifestyle into mainstream and gain acceptance by those who are unsure of its veracity in morals and in society.
One of the popular arguments against religious opposition to homosexuality was used by the author, and I would like to point out the way the Bible’s meaning was distorted. The author spoke about certain sins and their punishments during Moses's time, and how in our society we no longer punish people for those acts nor do we use such severe punishments for any small crimes such as those listed. If we no longer punish people for lighting a fire on the Sabbath, God no longer punishes people for homosexuality.
However, according to this logic, adultery (a crime punished just as severely as homosexuality) is also no longer wrong because a different society’s punishments have changed. God never said, “Homosexuality is now an approved action, and so is adultery, spouse abuse, and drunkenness.” We have no record of that in the scriptures, only a change in consequences as societies rose, fell, and became more civilized.
I do not want to spend any more time on this because not everyone will be persuaded for or against homosexuality. The main point is this: for those who believe homosexuality to be not only a sin, but a sin as serious as adultery, bestiality, and other similar acts, Dumbledore is no longer the person he was. He no longer has any of that wholesome or pure quality that we suspected of him. He is the same as an adulterer, a spouse-abuser, a pedophile. The symbol that he represented for the first six books, that of a sort of Christ-figure, now cannot be.
Many of you will say, there is a huge difference between someone who loves a member of the same sex and someone who breaks a commitment of love either through infidelity or physical violence, but others disagree. Those who see the family unit to be the fabric of society, and marriage between a man and woman an institution ordained by God, to be something sacred-- we see homosexuality as a direct threat to that which God created. And therefore, it is just as dangerous as other sins that are glamorized in media.
Does that mean we love homosexuals less? No.
Do we support what they do? No.
So why would we throw our hands together and applaud JKR’s decision to make such an important, wise, and powerful character a homosexual? Especially since she waited until weeks after the final book had had plenty of time to sell millions of copies to people who had no idea they were supporting her views. It was cowardly and under-handed. It tears apart the validity of the things we try to teach our children. I wanted my children to read the books I have cherished for the last eight years, and now I have to hope my child will never have to wonder, “if homosexuality is wrong, why is Dumbledore gay?”
Dumbledore, over the course of the series, grew into a role model of purity and wisdom, and part of that has been lost. He is not a role model for those who believe a part of his life was very wrong. I hope that this has provided an answer to those of you who wonder why we react strongly (and yes, sometimes too strongly) to announcements such as the one this week. I want to reiterate the fact that we do not hate gays, nor do we discriminate against them. But please do not call us intolerant, homophobic, or prejudiced for believing what we want to peaceably believe. There is nothing bad about thinking homosexuality is morally wrong, just like lying, stealing, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, and murder, because we believe, yes, it does hurt people. It hurts our children who we are trying to teach that God wants one kind of family: a wife and husband who love each other and children.
(I submitted this to mugglenet.com and since I doubt it will be published, I still want my voice to be heard!)

7 comments:

Becky said...

Very nice, I still think your children can read the books just don't clue them in on that announcement made by JKR. In the books she does not make any reference to him being gay or does not show any suggestive behavior of any kind.

Britley said...

Great post, Jake. Thanks for standing up for something.

Rosalee said...

Thanks Jacob for putting in such beautiful words what I could not express myself. It sounds silly, but I feel let down by this announcement. I feel that JKR has tainted her incredible work. I feel that we've been tricked and lied to for many years. (unless, of course, she just decided last week that he was gay.) I guess that this just goes to show that our trust must always be with the Lord, because He will never let us down, trick us, or lie to us. Our trust cannot be in the world or we will always be let down.

becca said...

Personally, I think she made it all up because she wanted her books back in the headlines. Maybe she was jealous of all the Twilight hype and since she doesn't have any more books coming out, this is what she came up with. I think she is getting the response she was looking for. I like your post Jacob. Hi Kat and Lily.

Becky said...

I have to agree with Becca, I think maybe she wanted to appeal to a different type of crowd. She thought that maybe she could get more sales that way. Which is a shame because they are supposed to be children's books and by coming out with him as gay is a shame that she had to put such an ugly twist to her books.

Emily said...

Two things:
1. All writers should know that their works will be interpreted by each individual in their own way. Simply disregard her announcement and look to the character for his good qualities. You can still love him. Hate the sin not the sinner, right? Maybe this should teach us not to be so attached to fiction. 2. And as a believer in a Heavenly Father, I know that nothing from someone's personal life should keep me from loving and respecting them if they have those qualities to esteem. Jesus didn't stop loving anyone once he found out they were doing bad things. If we said of anyone who has committed a sin, "He (or she) no longer has any of that wholesome or pure quality that we suspected of him (or her)" we would have to take that upon ourselves as well. I certainly wouldn't want you to think that about me, and I know I'm not perfect. It takes all kinds and we are all God's children. You can tell your children that it is wrong to be gay, but that doesn't mean that Dumbledore was a bad man. Was he given the light and truth of the gospel?...

PS I want to hear from Kathryn sometime. LOVE YA!

Anonymous said...

I have noticed a few of your blog posts and, first of all, I would like to say, you have WAY too much time on your hands. Secondly, who are the "we" to which you refer? If it is you, Jake and Kathryn, then it might be wise to specify. If you are referring to LDS people in general, please stop! Not all of "us" feel as you do and because this blog is out there for all the world to see, I would appreciate it if you would not speak for all members of the LDS faith. I know and have as friends many gay people, and although I do not agree with the life they have chosen, I have found many fine qualities, admirable qualities, that I appreciate, just as I would with any other human being. Besides, who am I to judge? Suppose someone you knew disregarded all of your fine attributes simply because they disagreed with your choice of career or the school you support so valiantly. That person would be denying themselves the opportunity to associate with and learn from you. Wouldn't that be a shame?