I’ve never seen Harry Potter as anything more than entertainment. I was glad to see my children reading with such vigor so it appeared to be a good thing. Whatever the forum for outing the character I find it to be superflous. What impact does a character’s sexuality play in a book with no sex? It’s just a way to keep the books in the news and squeeze out a few more sales. I hope it doesn’t find it’s way into the movies.
By your reasoning, Dumbledore could have been stated to be a pedophile, a rapist, or into bestiality also, and it would have made no difference to you.
The problem is, you have this character children innocently regarded as a kindly old wizard and role model for Harry Potter (no problem there), and then, all of a sudden, Rowling throws in this moral monkey wrench and decrees that he is a homosexual. The message seems to be that Dumbledore’s “gayness” does not make him a “bad” person, so homosexuality is presented as a morally neutral behavior. However, Rowling’s reckless grandstanding fails to address that our “outed” character may be a pedophile as well, given that he is constantly in the company of impressionable youngsters.
On the other hand, you have the likes of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote some excellent fantasy and stuck to the good-versus-evil theme without politically-correct shades of gray.
It doesn't, and that's why Rowling should have kept her trap shut.