"I wonder why you said that Dumbledore is a gay because I can't see him in that way."
"Maybe because gay people look like....people?"
Perfect? I say it is highly flawed, both logically and in terms or plain-old courtesy.
I'd like to illustrate my frustration by saying "I don't even know where to start," but I happen to know exactly where to start: the intentional fallacy.
J.K. Rowling "announced," in 2007, that the head wizard, Dumbledore, in the Harry Potter books, is gay. The intentional fallacy, which is widely-accepted by modern literary scholars, and that I came to whole-heartedly accept during graduate school study of literature, would say that knowing what the author had in mind while writing is not the path to "correct" interpretation. In fact, anyone worth his or her salt in the literary world knows that the idea of "correct" interpretation is foolish; worse, it is directly counter to the inherent richness of literary study.