Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Reading Morning News

Author J.K. Rowling had stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.

The news brought gasps, then applause at Carnegie Hall, the last stop on Rowling's brief U.S. tour, and set off thousands of e-mails on Potter fan Web sites around the world. Some were dismayed, others indifferent, but most were supportive.

"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, webmaster of the fan site http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."

"'DUMBLEDORE IS GAY' is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it's certainly not what I expected," added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, N.J. "(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights."

As a young man, Dumbledore, brilliant and powerful, had been forced to return home to look after his mentally ill younger sister and younger brother. It was a task he admits to Harry that he resented, because it derailed the bright future he had been looking forward to.

My personal take? I think Gay or No Gay, it makes no difference. People have so many differences and here's just another one. The point here is the person's character and talents we should take note of. This whole saga made many parents there very happy as their children were all engaged in reading. Well. This could also be a good opportunity for early education of human homosexuality. I really wonder if this would be the same in Singapore.

*****

Topic on the Repeal of Section Code 377A.

The laws were refined after consultations with the public and legal sector over a period of two to three years. The changes are aimed at better protecting the more vulnerable in society and to take into account technological advancements and crime trends. Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong submitting a much-publicised petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises sex between men.

Presenting his views, Mr Siew said Section 377A is unconstitutional and should be repealed, even though the government has said it will not enforce the law actively. He also spoke against the retention of Section 377A, just because the majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality. Part of his argument stemmed from the fact that Section 377 will be abolished to legalise private, consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults.

Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said that public feedback on Section 377A has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed, with the majority calling for its retention. "Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing Section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life."

Well. It seemed the government finds that its ok for to abolish Section 377. If so, does it mean that its ok to have private, consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults? So what kind of signal is this sending across then? People are now more concerned against Section 377A and not Section 377.

I certainly can't see how Section 377 can define anything less gross than Section 377A. It clearly simple. If people can think Section 377A is 'immoral', then Section 377 really isn't much far away from it. This whole argument has been going on and on.. I guess its time to stop? Sometimes.. people should stop hiding behind their moral or religious grounds.

I do see the concern of the worry of parents on how this can indirectly affect the kids upbringing. But get this fact right. Homosexuality is not an illness. It cannot be spread by being near to a gay. Instead of evading this topic, I think that parents can take the responsibility of letting their children know that there are straight (heterosexual) people and there are not-very-straight(homosexual) people, that people do not really have a choice to be hetero or homo sexual.

A person may prefer plainwater to a carbonated drink. Its all part of growing up process. People choose things according to their uniqueness. If the child turns out to be one, at least, he or she won't feel pressured or depress or hopeless just because the surrounding might deem them as freaks. It is certainly not very nice to be looked upon in such manner or feel this way.

I'm merely airing my thoughts on the grounds for the appeal of repealling of Section 377A. If people are dying to retain 377A on the grounds of it being against the order of nature, then perhaps we should all be righteous and fair and restore Section 377.

If you don't know anything about Section 377 or Section 377A, well.. perhaps its time for you to read the news? ChannelNewsAsia.com can be a good start.

*****

Tomato Juice Spill Causes Headaches at LaGuardia.

Hundreds of people stood on long lines after a screening machine malfunctioned at LaGuardia Airport. Apparently the tomato juice spill had resulted in the need to repair one of the passenger screening machines. One of the spokesman said "That's the risk you take when you deal with technology."

Well. The people there obviously didn't see it that way. They think the biggest problem is inefficiency and things should be better. Like things are always easier said than done. When the technology is finally created, many people just hurray and buy it. Nobody give much of a damn of thought to it and when things don't go their way technically, they blame technology.

*****

Busy now. More to share later. Check it out.