the "Why didn't they just shoot Voldemort?" thread

[Treblaine]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

Well if that is so why did she not set Harry Potter books in a COMPLETELY separate universe from our own, with only the smallest interaction with our muggle world like through inter-dimensional portals?

She wants it both ways. She set Harry Potter in our world to be easy to relate to but being apparently always invisible... yet not how they would obviously interact.

For very little children - like 7 year olds - you can sell the idea of magical stuff going on all around them like Santa Clause. Because it's kinda hard to explain capitalism and all the things of the world to little children.

But not older children and young adults who have a comprehensive idea of how our world works. They see how such a huge threat as Voldemort would have a military response from democratically elected authorities.

 

[370999]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

Well if that is so why did she not set Harry Potter books in a COMPLETELY separate universe from our own, with only the smallest interaction with our muggle world like through inter-dimensional portals?

She wants it both ways. She set Harry Potter in our world to be easy to relate to but being apparently always invisible... yet not how they would obviously interact.

For very little children - like 7 year olds - you can sell the idea of magical stuff going on all around them like Santa Clause. Because it's kinda hard to explain capitalism and all the things of the world to little children.

But not older children and young adults who have a comprehensive idea of how our world works. They see how such a huge threat as Voldemort would have a military response from democratically elected authorities.

Then write that yourself. Really this is such a non issue to me I am struggling to see why you seem so emotional about it. Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book.

Really most people including myself though "I wonder what would of happened if they used guns" after reading it and then went promptly on with our day.

Look I'm really sorry if this sounds patronizing but you are right it's a flaw but oh well... move on maybe?

 

[Treblaine]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

Well if that is so why did she not set Harry Potter books in a COMPLETELY separate universe from our own, with only the smallest interaction with our muggle world like through inter-dimensional portals?

She wants it both ways. She set Harry Potter in our world to be easy to relate to but being apparently always invisible... yet not how they would obviously interact.

For very little children - like 7 year olds - you can sell the idea of magical stuff going on all around them like Santa Clause. Because it's kinda hard to explain capitalism and all the things of the world to little children.

But not older children and young adults who have a comprehensive idea of how our world works. They see how such a huge threat as Voldemort would have a military response from democratically elected authorities.

Then write that yourself. Really this is such a non issue to me I am struggling to see why you seem so emotional about it. Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book.

Really most people including myself though "I wonder what would of happened if they used guns" after reading it and then went promptly on with our day.

Look I'm really sorry if this sounds patronizing but you are right it's a flaw but oh well... move on maybe?

"Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book."

That is nonsense. Try again.

You don't seem to have read either my posts nor even proof read your own. You don't seem to understand my objections and you could do with reading them again rather than me re-typing them. I have thought a bit more deeply about this than you, and you seem to have a problem with that. It's not an imperfection in her writing, it's a major problem that comes from the writer's critical lack of integrity and honesty. She is two faced, hypocritical and has exploitative double-standards.

This may have started as a dumb children's story but it has gotten out of hand. People grow up and shouldn't indulge in such arbitrary solutions to problems. It's fine to have deus ex machina solutions in small children's books, but as they grow up the series must grow up with them, only Rowling only seems to have increased the body count to account for age. It's so disappointing.

 

[370999]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

Well if that is so why did she not set Harry Potter books in a COMPLETELY separate universe from our own, with only the smallest interaction with our muggle world like through inter-dimensional portals?

She wants it both ways. She set Harry Potter in our world to be easy to relate to but being apparently always invisible... yet not how they would obviously interact.

For very little children - like 7 year olds - you can sell the idea of magical stuff going on all around them like Santa Clause. Because it's kinda hard to explain capitalism and all the things of the world to little children.

But not older children and young adults who have a comprehensive idea of how our world works. They see how such a huge threat as Voldemort would have a military response from democratically elected authorities.

Then write that yourself. Really this is such a non issue to me I am struggling to see why you seem so emotional about it. Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book.

Really most people including myself though "I wonder what would of happened if they used guns" after reading it and then went promptly on with our day.

Look I'm really sorry if this sounds patronizing but you are right it's a flaw but oh well... move on maybe?

"Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book."

That is nonsense. Try again.

You don't seem to have read either my posts nor even proof read your own. You don't seem to understand my objections and you could do with reading them again rather than me re-typing them. I have thought a bit more deeply about this than you, and you seem to have a problem with that. It's not an imperfection in her writing, it's a major problem that comes from the writer's critical lack of integrity and honesty. She is two faced, hypocritical and has exploitative double-standards.

This may have started as a dumb children's story but it has gotten out of hand. People grow up and shouldn't indulge in such arbitrary solutions to problems. It's fine to have deus ex machina solutions in small children's books, but as they grow up the series must grow up with them, only Rowling only seems to have increased the body count to account for age. It's so disappointing.

If we are going to do little snippy comments then we are done. I have no interest in having a huge passionate argument over Harry Potter.

Do I have a problem with you think more deeply then myself on the flaws of Rowling's literary abilities? No I don't care. What I do fine amusing is that you call her "two faced".

You see I'm not saying your objections are wrong but so what, is the approval of fourteen year old kids really that important. This whole situation would be like me devoting a whole thread to the musical failings of Justin Beiber, yeah my criticisms might be valid but the question is why am I making them.

 

[thisbymaster]

As I just rewatched the movies for the heck of it this week. I can't remember why I liked them in the first place, harry is a moron, Ron is a bigger moron, Hermione is the only one smart enough to OPEN A BOOK. I am surprised that any of them were able to do anything. Tom Riddle was the only one who seemed to have a brain at all. Is it bad that I was rooting for him the whole time, as his motivation made some sense? How can harry be thought of as a "great wizard" when he only knows maybe five spells. I still think Dumbledore is the worst villain in the books/movies. He knew the dangers, and how to fix them but never did anything but let an unarmed boy go in to the death trap. He even had harry spend the entire half-blood prince discovering something that he MUST have already known.

 

[Akkiko]

I assume a gun was never mentioned due to the fact that these books were aimed at children. If you were writing a fantasy novel about wizards and witches, a school based around magic and a boy's coming of age story into this world designed for a younger audience in Europe, would you bring in a gun?

Logic and editors would dictate the answer would be: no.

Honestly, it sounds like you're reacting the way most people do to the Twilight fanbase. You're tired of people talking about how much they love a series so you have to point out its' flaws and why it wouldn't hold up in the real world, ultimately trying to bring it down which is, imo, pointless. People will love what they love, you can't really change that.

 

[Treblaine]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

Well if that is so why did she not set Harry Potter books in a COMPLETELY separate universe from our own, with only the smallest interaction with our muggle world like through inter-dimensional portals?

She wants it both ways. She set Harry Potter in our world to be easy to relate to but being apparently always invisible... yet not how they would obviously interact.

For very little children - like 7 year olds - you can sell the idea of magical stuff going on all around them like Santa Clause. Because it's kinda hard to explain capitalism and all the things of the world to little children.

But not older children and young adults who have a comprehensive idea of how our world works. They see how such a huge threat as Voldemort would have a military response from democratically elected authorities.

Then write that yourself. Really this is such a non issue to me I am struggling to see why you seem so emotional about it. Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book.

Really most people including myself though "I wonder what would of happened if they used guns" after reading it and then went promptly on with our day.

Look I'm really sorry if this sounds patronizing but you are right it's a flaw but oh well... move on maybe?

"Rowling isn't a superb writing so mad a couple of mistakes when writing her book."

That is nonsense. Try again.

You don't seem to have read either my posts nor even proof read your own. You don't seem to understand my objections and you could do with reading them again rather than me re-typing them. I have thought a bit more deeply about this than you, and you seem to have a problem with that. It's not an imperfection in her writing, it's a major problem that comes from the writer's critical lack of integrity and honesty. She is two faced, hypocritical and has exploitative double-standards.

This may have started as a dumb children's story but it has gotten out of hand. People grow up and shouldn't indulge in such arbitrary solutions to problems. It's fine to have deus ex machina solutions in small children's books, but as they grow up the series must grow up with them, only Rowling only seems to have increased the body count to account for age. It's so disappointing.

If we are going to do little snippy comments then we are done. I have no interest in having a huge passionate argument over Harry Potter.

Do I have a problem with you think more deeply then myself on the flaws of Rowling's literary abilities? No I don't care. What I do fine amusing is that you call her "two faced".

You see I'm not saying your objections are wrong but so what, is the approval of fourteen year old kids really that important. This whole situation would be like me devoting a whole thread to the musical failings of Justin Beiber, yeah my criticisms might be valid but the question is why am I making them.

Snippy? You mean as in short and to the point? Or do you mean snide? Well I wasn't either. It's not snide to expect you to put the barest effort into making legible sentences, it has nothing to do with academic ability, it is down to you CARING enough to proof read what you post.

I don't think it's amusing that she is two-faced on gay-acceptance. I think she is shamefully exploitative feigning progressive characterisation only to betray that promise. If your amusement is from incredulity then you cannot claim that by my failure to explain this. I have.

She is two-faced in other ways, spelling out that Voldemort is evil for discrimination towards muggles. Yet all the principal wizarding characters express the same discrimination towards muggles, refusing to use any of their culture nor most of their technology and worst of all refusing to use their magic to help muggles. When millions of muggles are dying of preventable ailments. Is there a magical cure to HIV/AIDS that the wizarding folk jealously guard?

And yes, the approval of 14 year old kids IS very important. Homosexuals are an extremely persecuted group in this day and age and so many are driven to suicide by this persecution, you can't claim to be ignorant of that.

"This whole situation would be like me devoting a whole thread to the musical failings of Justin Beiber"

Interesting you'd choose this example after I SPECIFICALLY compared how this is NOT like hate for that singer.

This is not my personal taste getting in the way. My personal taste dislikes Justin Beiber, but really he doesn't distort any fundamental perceptions of reality or impede free thought nor exploit people's confidence like I've listed above so I don't have any more to say about him and have never joined in on the Bieber hate.

 

[Treblaine]

On this, I'll disagree. She created a universe, she's the "God" of that universe. If she says Dumbledore likes the cock, then Dumbledore always liked the cock. Is it exploitative? No. Because now you can go back and anytime Dumbledore says "This is my old friend" you know that is code for he took it in the ass.

Plus your argument nullifys my evidence that she said decoratively that the muggles would win the war.

Yes, she is the absolute creator in her books but she didn't say he was gay in her books, she said this in interviews. It is NOT CANON! She can say whatever she likes in interviews about the books and she can just go against it in a later instalment.

Actually it's Word of God, so it is canon. Also the fact that you never noticed the completely obvious gay undertones with Grindelwald perplexes me.

Really? I'd consider obvious being actual sexual reciprocation with another male like kissing. Some statement of deep and unbridled love and intimate affection. You don't have that.

My point is Rowling is two faced. She benefits hugely in monetary terms from selling Harry Potter books to parts of the world that are violently homophobic but she never actually commits so can keep the high sales. In interviews she can say what she likes to artificially generate praise for progressing gay acceptance. It was a promise she never delivered on.

Canon is canon. The author can say whatever they like but what is actually in the story is what is actually in the story.

Wait, are you saying 2 males can't fall in love and can only show affection through physical contact?

It was insanely obvious that him and Grindelwald had feelings for each other, or at least unrequited love from Dumbledore's side, it's a bit disheartening that you never picked that up. Did you pick up on the feelings for Ron and Hermione before they kissed at the end of the book?

I love my brother. I love my father. I even love my best friend who is male. But of course I've never had any intimate sexual interest in them.

Yes SEX is an important defining aspect of homoSEXUAL relationships. And not explicit sex, but definitely an intimacy that goes beyond brotherly love or affection. Have you not heard of the term of romantic friendship, which is by the way COMPLETELY PLATONIC.

"insanely obvious"

Is a meaningless phrase. Give me an example. Right now they don't have more of a relationship than Batman and Robin, Holmes and Watson, Riggs and Murtagh, or Selma and Louise. Entirely platonic.

 

[Treblaine]

On this, I'll disagree. She created a universe, she's the "God" of that universe. If she says Dumbledore likes the cock, then Dumbledore always liked the cock. Is it exploitative? No. Because now you can go back and anytime Dumbledore says "This is my old friend" you know that is code for he took it in the ass.

Plus your argument nullifys my evidence that she said decoratively that the muggles would win the war.

Yes, she is the absolute creator in her books but she didn't say he was gay in her books, she said this in interviews. It is NOT CANON! She can say whatever she likes in interviews about the books and she can just go against it in a later instalment.

Actually it's Word of God, so it is canon. Also the fact that you never noticed the completely obvious gay undertones with Grindelwald perplexes me.

Really? I'd consider obvious being actual sexual reciprocation with another male like kissing. Some statement of deep and unbridled love and intimate affection. You don't have that.

My point is Rowling is two faced. She benefits hugely in monetary terms from selling Harry Potter books to parts of the world that are violently homophobic but she never actually commits so can keep the high sales. In interviews she can say what she likes to artificially generate praise for progressing gay acceptance. It was a promise she never delivered on.

Canon is canon. The author can say whatever they like but what is actually in the story is what is actually in the story.

Wait, are you saying 2 males can't fall in love and can only show affection through physical contact?

It was insanely obvious that him and Grindelwald had feelings for each other, or at least unrequited love from Dumbledore's side, it's a bit disheartening that you never picked that up. Did you pick up on the feelings for Ron and Hermione before they kissed at the end of the book?

I love my brother. I love my father. I even love my best friend who is male. But of course I've never had any intimate sexual interest in them.

Yes SEX is an important defining aspect of homoSEXUAL relationships. And not explicit sex, but definitely an intimacy that goes beyond brotherly love or affection. Have you not heard of the term of romantic friendship, which is by the way COMPLETELY PLATONIC.

"insanely obvious"

Is a meaningless phrase. Give me an example. Right now they don't have more of a relationship than Batman and Robin, Holmes and Watson, Riggs and Murtagh, or Selma and Louise. Entirely platonic.

No, being homosexual doesn't mean you have sex with men, it means you're sexually attracted to men. Shock horror, you can be gay and be a virgin too.

I'll give you your evidence after you answer my question about Ron and Hermione.

DUUUUUHH! I said that. I didn't say sexual intercourse, I said:

"not explicit sex, but definitely an intimacy that goes beyond brotherly love or affection"

Why would Dumbledore be gay yet never have any sexual contact with men? Is that because he is deep in the closet or even in denial? Is this because the Wizarding community is backwards as its approach to technology and science with violent homophobia? Could Dumbledore only get his position in Hogwarts by living a lie? Wouldn't Rowling think that be a story worth telling?

I suspected as such Ron's sexual interest in Hermione as it was explicitly stated his heterosexuality, and explicitly alluded to with the Horcrux taunted Ron playing in his jealousy that Harry and Hermione would love each other sexually. But ultimately it WAS confirmed by their kiss.

Dumbledore didn't get any of that. It was neither explicitly alluded to nor confirmed.

Rowling made her claim in a interview to acclaim in the press without interrupting book sales throughout middle east and asia who are violently homophobic. She could have taken a stand to back up this move that was labelled "brave" and "Progressive" but didn't.

 

[370999]

snippity snip

Righty oh

First of my usage of snippy was to meant to indicate overly confrontational and bellicose in tone. I will reiterate my desire to avoid any possible bad blood over this subject as I don't think it's worth it.

Honestly I feel we aren't having an argument about anything. Yes you have been quite clear in explaining your distaste for the series which is perfectly understandable, I'm not a massive fan of it either.

I don't think it's amusing that she is two-faced on gay-acceptance. I think she is shamefully exploitative feigning progressive characterisation only to betray that promise. If your amusement is from incredulity then you cannot claim that by my failure to explain this. I have.

The inevitable but is that I am not convinced by your arguments that make it out to be a negative moral forces that exerts a retrogressive pressure on society. Your point about Dumbledore's shoehorned sexuality is well, it just too much of an exaggeration to me. Dumbledore being gay was a hollow attempt to be progressive but so would suddenly declaring him to be transsexual or following a strict vegan lifestyle (though he deserves to be ridiculed for that/joke)

She is two-faced in other ways, spelling out that Voldemort is evil for discrimination towards muggles. Yet all the principal wizarding characters express the same discrimination towards muggles, refusing to use any of their culture nor most of their technology and worst of all refusing to use their magic to help muggles. When millions of muggles are dying of preventable ailments. Is there a magical cure to HIV/AIDS that the wizarding folk jealously guard?

And again that is over thinking it IMHO. She clumsily attempted an urban fantasy. I don't think she possess a malicious intent but simply didn't think about it at large. So while that would be a failure of her as a writer it doesn't indicate an evilness of character. Ultimately the MST 3K mantra comes into affect.

And yes, the approval of 14 year old kids IS very important. Homosexuals are an extremely persecuted group in this day and age and so many are driven to suicide by this persecution, you can't claim to be ignorant of that.

And I again do not find her work homophobic. Mildly exploitative of homosexuality, perhaps but no more then say the character of Zevran in Dragon Age.

I was a tad clumsy with the Beiber point. I was attempting to show that you feelings on him are exactly the same as mine in regards to Rowling.

 

[Treblaine]

snippity snip

Righty oh

First of my usage of snippy was to meant to indicate overly confrontational and bellicose in tone. I will reiterate my desire to avoid any possible bad blood over this subject as I don't think it's worth it.

Honestly I feel we aren't having an argument about anything. Yes you have been quite clear in explaining your distaste for the series which is perfectly understandable, I'm not a massive fan of it either.

I don't think it's amusing that she is two-faced on gay-acceptance. I think she is shamefully exploitative feigning progressive characterisation only to betray that promise. If your amusement is from incredulity then you cannot claim that by my failure to explain this. I have.

The inevitable but is that I am not convinced by your arguments that make it out to be a negative moral forces that exerts a retrogressive pressure on society. Your point about Dumbledore's shoehorned sexuality is well, it just too much of an exaggeration to me. Dumbledore being gay was a hollow attempt to be progressive but so would suddenly declaring him to be transsexual or following a strict vegan lifestyle (though he deserves to be ridiculed for that/joke)

She is two-faced in other ways, spelling out that Voldemort is evil for discrimination towards muggles. Yet all the principal wizarding characters express the same discrimination towards muggles, refusing to use any of their culture nor most of their technology and worst of all refusing to use their magic to help muggles. When millions of muggles are dying of preventable ailments. Is there a magical cure to HIV/AIDS that the wizarding folk jealously guard?

And again that is over thinking it IMHO. She clumsily attempted an urban fantasy. I don't think she possess a malicious intent but simply didn't think about it at large. So while that would be a failure of her as a writer it doesn't indicate an evilness of character. Ultimately the MST 3K mantra comes into affect.

And yes, the approval of 14 year old kids IS very important. Homosexuals are an extremely persecuted group in this day and age and so many are driven to suicide by this persecution, you can't claim to be ignorant of that.

And I again do not find her work homophobic. Mildly exploitative of homosexuality, perhaps but no more then say the character of Zevran in Dragon Age.

I was a tad clumsy with the Beiber point. I was attempting to show that you feelings on him are exactly the same as mine in regards to Rowling.

I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality would be shoehorned. In principal the ground work is laid by the casting of Ian McKellan as Gandalf, who is openly gay and has been involved in gay activism, it's not like that combination is totally unthinkable for people. It would be a great opportunity to subvert the old-wise-mentor archetype who has traditionally been single and a paragon of the alpha-male. This could challenge the common depictions of homosexuality as a flamboyant and/or weak character.

I believe it's more than a clumsy attempt, she talks fondly and whimsically of this segregation. The popular character Hagrid is given the line that Wizards keep themselves secret so they don't have to solve their problems... as if famine, disease and war are petty problems muggles are just too lazy to fix themselves... when the wizards LITERALLY have a magic cure for it all. It's insultingly naive in what it proposes.

And this is not some shitty B-movie where the few who watch laugh at it. Harry Potter is a BILLION DOLLAR series that MILLIONS of people absolutely adore and and inspired by. People dress up and imitate these characters. These ideas that the protagonists support, sympathetic characters we are supposed to relate to, these ideas can rub off.

Her work may not be homophobic but it kowtows to homophobia for greed and self interest. It's a squandered opportunity to do something to quash the homophobia that seems to be built into all of us and that we should grow out of, though many don't. It's especially prevalent in pubescence, when sexual distinctions begin being made, homosexuality can very easily seem dangerous and people react negatively.

 

[Treblaine]

Lol what? Why would he be gay but never have any sexual contact with men? You do realise that you don't have to have had any sexual contact with men whatsoever and you can still be gay? What on earth are you talking about with Rowling, this entire argument is about you not believing Dumbledore is gay despite the evidence and word of god.

There are many characters in the HP universe that don't get any romantic storylines whatsoever, that doesn't mean they aren't straight/gay, it just means it's none of Harry's business. The entire story is seen from Harry's perspective.

Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet each other at the prime time of their life when normal males are interested in sex. They sneak out of their house at night to see each other and write secret letters to one another. They do this, not after years of being childhood best friends, but a short amount of time after knowing each other. That seems oddly close for 2 teenage boys, but hey maybe they're straight.

But then, when disaster strikes, Grindelwald runs as far away from Dumbledore as he can and never shows his face to him again. When GW starts becoming a dictator, DD, the one wizard powerful enough to stop him, deliberately avoids him and puts off facing him for a long time. Why? Shouldn't they both show hate for each other rather than remorse, seeing as though DD's sister was accidently killed and, while his brother never knew who it was that cast the killing curse, it's implied that it's the guy who ran away and eventually became a dictator.

When they do face and duel Grindelwald is the master of the Elder Wand, the unbeatable wand that can break or bend the rules of magic (fixing Harry's wand for example), yet he loses the duel to DD..? Not only that but DD doesn't kill him. He loses, despite having the unbeatable wand, and DD doesn't kill him. How could he lose, unless of course he let DD win, even subconciously? Hey maybe not, maybe Dumbledore somehow beat an incredibly powerful wizard with the unbeatable wand in a duel some other way.

Then, all those years later, despite having everything stripped away from him, Grindelwald refuses to co-operate with Voldemort even against the guy that took everything away from him, who is now dead, when his life depends on it and Dumbledore never gets into a relationship with anyone for his entire life?

If you're not seeing the gay undertones there, even if it's just from Dumbledore's side with Grindelwald being aware of it, then it's hopeless. Even worse is word of god has said Dumbledore is gay, which gives so much credit to all this evidence.

Thing is this is all indistinguishable from simple friendship. Harry sneaked out with Ron as well, what does that prove?

"Grindelwald runs as far away from Dumbledore as he can and never shows his face to him again."

This doesn't add to the argument they are infatuated with each other.

As established, the Elder Wand is extraordinarily fickle in its ownership, it didn't work for Voldemort, is that because Voldemort was in love with Harry? Draco disarmed Dumbledore while he wielded the Elder Wand, could Draco only have done that because Dumbledore had a deep deep love for Draco, deeper than any brotherly love but an intimate love. I think not.

Maybe Dumbledore doesn't kill the disarmed Grindelwald because he isn't a cold blooded murderer?

Grindelwald's refusal to help a jerk like Voldemort doesn't confirm any love he has for Dumbeldore, just that he's an old man giving the finger to the world. In fact Dubledore doesn't seem to care all that much that he has been incarcerated in a hellish prison for decades, more concerned on whether he has really repented for his crimes or not.

If Dubledore loved any man... it was never indicated by anything in Rowling's books, to spite her promise. She is two faced and exploitative.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

They'd still have to get rid of the Horcruxes. But after that is done, sure, and gun would've worked. I guess it just wouldn't fit with the world of Harry Potter. It's fantasy, don't overly over-think it.

 

[Treblaine]

Thing is this is all indistinguishable from simple friendship. Harry sneaked out with Ron as well, what does that prove?

"Grindelwald runs as far away from Dumbledore as he can and never shows his face to him again."

This doesn't add to the argument they are infatuated with each other.

As established, the Elder Wand is extraordinarily fickle in its ownership, it didn't work for Voldemort, is that because Voldemort was in love with Harry? Draco disarmed Dumbledore while he wielded the Elder Wand, could Draco only have done that because Dumbledore had a deep deep love for Draco, deeper than any brotherly love but an intimate love. I think not.

Maybe Dumbledore doesn't kill the disarmed Grindelwald because he isn't a cold blooded murderer?

Grindelwald's refusal to help a jerk like Voldemort doesn't confirm any love he has for Dumbeldore, just that he's an old man giving the finger to the world. In fact Dubledore doesn't seem to care all that much that he has been incarcerated in a hellish prison for decades, more concerned on whether he has really repented for his crimes or not.

If Dubledore loved any man... it was never indicated by anything in Rowling's books, to spite her promise. She is two faced and exploitative.

Harry isn't gay. Either is Ron. Dumbledore is, honestly it makes no difference is you disagree, word of god states he is gay. Not only that but I don't remember Ron and Harry writting secret notes to each other and sharing their dark and tabboo secrets with each other.
(they did actually) In all the years that they knew each other Ron never discused his feelings about Hermione with Harry, despite being best friends for years, yet DD and GW were unusually close after a short amount of time and sharing secrets with each other. Ron and Harry also spent their time with girls, something that DD and GW never did.(absence of evidence is evidence of absence?!?!)

You have to beat someone to get the Elder Wand. Yes, it can be loopholed around, yet no one in the series was beat in a duel with it when they owned it apart from Grindelwald.(part from ALL the other circumstances where the wand has exchanged hands with ambiguous ownership) He never had his throat slit, he never got it stolen, he never got caught by surprise, he never planned to be killed and have it taken from him, instead he somehow lost a dramatic duel with it. How? He lost because he didn't want to kill the man he loved (are you so immature to think love can only be sexual?), and even if he did it subconsiously, he lost a dual depsite having the unbeatable wand and the only way he could've done that is if he let Dumbledore win.

He wasn't some random old guy either, he had the perfect oppotunity to undermine everything Dumbledore has done, the man who beat him got him sent to prison, yet he choses not to. We know he's not a nice person, he killed hundreds of people, yet he refuses to rat out Dumbledore even when DD is dead and his life depends on it? And Dumbledore puts off fighting him until he's more or lessed forced to fight him, and then never gets into a relationship with anyone else for his entire life? (again, how is this distinct from friendship?)

Seriously how are you not seeing this? Of course it could be simple friendship, that's why it's called evidence, not proof, but given the crazy amount of evidence pointing towards them having some sort of romantic relationship and feelings for each other in the book itself it really shouldn't take JK so say that Dumbledore is gay.

Nothing romantic or longing about the way Dumbledore describes Grindelwald rotting in jail, but concern for justice in him repenting for his crimes.

Again, how does his refusal to empower Voldemort make him infatuated with Dumbledore. He is never depicted as distressed or heartbroken over his supposed lover's demise, but arrogant and cocky to the new dictator on the block.

Rowling did cop out, she wrote a relationship that wasn't remotely intimate or romantic and you can't try to make this out as the gay relationship she promised. It's more like the relationship between Obi Wan Kenboi and Anakin. Are you really so immature to be unable to distinguish between a relationship of friends and relationship of lovers?