thats funny, because thats how I think you’re being

if you just want to ‘figure out the answer’ thats fine, however as i said, i find the N vs N debates to be a diversion from the overall civil rights issues.

I agree with you, I don’t care wether people are gay because of nature or nurture. I’m sorry if bringing that up has alot of terrible connotations for you, didn’t mean to do that. I don’t feel the debate is pointless though, I think it’s interesting. Not in order to find a way to classify or stop people from being gay, just to figure out what the answer is.

I don’t get why you all of a sudden lump me in with people wanting the right to make laws against gay people. I’ve said nothing to even remotely support that conclusion! My interest in the issue is purely sociological.

I don’t think she came up with this on the spot, I just find it strange that anyone would even consider the sexuality of this character at all. But then again, as Liz said, I have heard there are gay undertones related to him in the last book anyway, so maybe it is more important than some of us realize.

no. what I meant by that is that its not something people grow out of.

“I don’t get why you would bring something immediate into this”

That’s a convenient out.

Because this is the real world where people actually know people you spew bullshit about, and not playtime where you get to discriminate against people based on flimsy to no evidence. re you close with even ONE gay person?

“Nature vs. nurture”
I could go on for days on the many levesl of bullshit within those debates, but I’ll boil it down to this:
Its a ridiculous crutch to allow yourself your ignorance. Even if gay people actually DID choose their orientation – so what? What does that change? What gives you the right to make laws against them fucking, sucking, marrying or otherwise? What happened to freedom of choice? “Nature vs. Nurture” isnt suppressing homosexuals around the world, its asshole straight people whose religion or uptight precious widdle feewings get hurt by the idea of people who are harming NOONE, out there being who they are.

Government policy does not exist to validate your religious beliefs or personal biases, its there to protect ones rights and liberties. If you actually don’t think its a disease than I don’t see how you could argue with that.

“It seems weird that you would decide to make them a minority for no reason. That’s why I think it smells like press.”

It’s her character, if she says she’s always pictured him gay, I can only take her at her word. AGAIN – she did not go out of her way to make this statement, someone asked her a question and she answered. Period. Clearly she has her own reasons for thinking he’s gay, or based him off someone gay that she admired or something, it doesnt matter. I dont get how the fuck a random comment turns into some campaign to push “the gay agenda” or sell more books. She’s already sold all the books in the world, she doesn’t need to pull publicity stunts, which is another piece of evidence why this is clearly NOT one.

“it hits people of every culture, religion, nation regardless of laws against it, male and female, all ages.”

Wouldn’t ‘all ages’ contradict that it’s natural and not subject to outside influences?

I don’t at all think that homosexuality is a defect or disease (not sure if you were insinuating I did or not). My point was just that sexuality in fictional characters is obviously a part of them that has to be thought over. And it seems weird that you would decide to make them a minority for no reason. That’s why I think it smells like press.

That sums up my position pretty well, so it’s worth repeating.