Originally posted by Aqua-pimp
Yeah Jk would never put a controversial matter like racism in her book.. Voldermorts life goal isn't purifing the magical world of mudbloods and he's definitly not down with pure blood supremacy ..
Yeah that Voldemort guy is all abourt hugs and kisses isn't he? Question did you've ever actualy read a Harry Potter book?
ok read the following line really carefully...
SHE ALREADY PUT A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT MATTER LIKE RACISM IN HER BOOK GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY SHE WOULN'T PUT ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT LIKE HOMOSEXUALTITY IN HER BOOKS???? AL WHAT YOU'VE GIVING ME TILL NOW IS SH*T OF THE HIGHEST ORDER ..
No, you're not quite getting it.
That's a cleverly disguised form of racism. We both know that the definition of a Mudblood is someone with heritage of Muggle ancestry. The thing about it is, do you see racism as we know it in our world? No. Anything about whites vs blacks? None, zip and zilch. Nada. You can't exactly get in trouble for calling someone a Mudblood, but you can get in trouble for calling someone ******/chink/etc.
Her concern is; she doesn't want to see little Sally run off to school and call her teacher, who happens to be a black, a ****** just for the heck of it. She teaches the general concept, yet not encourage kids to go running around sowing anti-Black sentiments.
However, what you suggested is much more direct. There's no disguising homosexuality, it is what it is and it's stagnant. It's not exactly something that you can sugar up.
What kind of impact do you think having one of their greatest Magical heroes as a homosexual will have on very young readers?
What kind of trouble do you think she'll get into with Bloomsbury for pulling off that kind of stunt?
Think about it, if his death caused a huge uproar, finding out he's gay will be like a firestorm in midsummer.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!
You're accusing me of not providing the facts. Oh, that's a good one.
As far as I know, I have backed up my statements and claims and have provided reasonable arguments. You? You keep blustering on about how "It's 2007, let's all go and insert homosexuality in any type of media we can get our hands on"!
Rowling says: "Snape was loved."
And from that, somehow, you say: "OMFG It's Dumbledore!"
Oh, it's not up to you to decide which is the better debator in this argument. Nor is it up to me. It's up to the onlookers. And it looks like I've garnered more support than you have. How many supporters do you have? Oh yeah, none. Nil.
Okay, let's get some things straight.
You're for use of homosexuality, I'm strongly not.
Every time I've tried to dismiss the subject, you've brought it back for some odd reason. You know what? You're just blustering again. And I'm perfectly straight, thank you very much.
And yet you somehow get the idea that I, not you, enjoy watching men kissing. Your logic is absolutely nonexistant.
Oh, my, you're wetting yourself. Now, now.
Go clean it up, seriously. If you find any of this funny, then you're more idiotic than I thought.
How is this relevant? It isn't. You're drowning here and trying to throw out completely deranged insults just to annoy your opponents. And I am straight. Jesus Christ.
I don't find it annoying as much as I find it pathetic.
Once again, 0/5 for originality.
Oh yes, I did.
Seriously, what is the point of all these snide little sidesnips? To make you feel better? Well, whatever floats your boat.
I slipped it in there as an satirical example. Know your literary terms. If you actually think I meant that seriously then you need to read my posts more carefully.
There are worse things than being gay, yeah. Tell me something I don't know for once. And it still doesn't change anything. Homosexuality is still too inappropriate a subject to insert into something like Harry Potter. It doesn't matter if it's 2007 or 2003. If it's inappropriate for anyone in the intended age group, it shouldn't be there.
She writes whatever she wants?. No shit. However, it's the response to her writing that will make the most impact and that's what's on Bloomsbury and Rowling's mind. Just because it's a "free country" doesn't mean you don't get people pounding at your front door for making a poor decision. No excuse.
Get real. None of the trio, as far as we know, have lost their virginity and they're turning 17. No concept of sexuality yet. Not even close. Romance maybe. And if she hasn't done that, what the hell makes you think she'll throw a bombshell concept like homosexuality into the mix? Totally uncalled for.
You're saying that it'll be boring if gayness not in there?
Not long ago you were blustering that you were actually hoping that it wouldn't be on there.
Not long ago, you were also accusing me and Barker of being gay.
Try not to be such a hypocrite.
Your idea of "originality" and "suspense" is restricted to having homosexuality inserted into a book? Oh, please. You wouldn't know a good book if it hit you on the head at this rate. There are more and better methods of having those two elements in a Potter book without the inappropriate trash.
You seem to be pretty sure that it'll be in the seventh.
Yet you'll still be caught off guard if it is.
*cough* Hypocrisy *cough*
but it's possible it would explain his strong trust in him ..
id
It's self-sex, but sex none the less. 
It's clear that Rowling wishes to portray that Dumbledore trusted Snape with his very life, but don't mistake that for love. Or at least not in the way you are describing. Perhaps love in a father/son, master/student maybe friendship kinda love.