Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Harrison Butker graduation speech (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=349447)

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 01:37 PM

Two points. I think hatred towards gays, or at least severe prejudice, extends much deeper and further than you postulate here. It's not just some obscure little groups. My opinion.

Also, I don't disagree that in an ideal world it would be better to move past things like prejudice and ostracism and even abuse, but I think you may be overestimating the capacity of many people to do so. I blame the perpetrators, not the victims. And however minor in and of themselves, to bring it back to the original topic, speeches by public figures reinforcing an anti-gay message are, in my opinion, additive to the problem.

G1911 05-25-2024 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2436993)
Two points. I think hatred towards gays, or at least severe prejudice, extends much deeper and further than you postulate here. It's not just some obscure little groups. My opinion.

Also, I don't disagree that in an ideal world it would be better to move past things like prejudice and ostracism and even abuse, but I think you may be overestimating the capacity of many people to do so. I blame the perpetrators, not the victims. And however minor in and of themselves, to bring it back to the original topic, speeches by public figures reinforcing an anti-gay message are, in my opinion, additive to the problem.



The major groups that are actually consequentially anti-gay are the ones we don't want to talk about, like Islam. No seriously significant or large group in America that the gay agenda wants to target is actually running around trying to put the gays into concentration camps like the far left has been claiming for eight years, or to criminalize them, or any seriously consequential policy at all. 71% of Americans apparently support gay marriage, and most of the remaining 29% are not arguing to do anything consequential to them at all, they just think marriage should not have been redefined to suit a lobby. By and large the split is now the advocates who want to make any dissenter shut up and those like me who are not having this argument of putting gays feelings over everyone else's speech rights.

I'm not blaming the victim in this scenario, I'm engaged with reality. You cannot possibly undo the past - you do not control what happens around you or oftentimes to you. What you have control of is how you respond to that which happens. We do not live in a perfect world, all of us have things happen that suck for us. We can get over them, or live in depressive misery forever. That's just reality. Getting over it is the healthy response to things. A person who does not have the capacity to get over things will live a miserable life regardless of their orientation. They will never be happy in any realistic scenario.

A kicker saying he disagrees with homosexuality and advocating absolutely no punishment or deprival of rights whatsoever is no different from pro-gay speeches, aside from the fact that one opinion is more popular than the other. It's a completely meaningless event, simply used as fodder for political bait. This shouldn't even be a headline at all, there are actual issues in the world that have actual consequences beyond protecting the feelings of incredibly sensitive people who nobody should be able to dissent.

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 02:20 PM

The Speaker of the House has advocated criminalizing gay sex. As best I can tell, he has not disowned those views.

G1911 05-25-2024 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2437002)
The Speaker of the House has advocated criminalizing gay sex. As best I can tell, he has not disowned those views.

I used the present tense for a reason :). Please identify this significant, broad group (only among the desirable political targets, of course, rather than the obvious) in 2024 that is doing this.

Johnson was apparently against Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and in 2004 supported a ban in Louisiana. Many leftists were against gay marriage over 20 years ago as well. This has nothing to do with today of course; at this time gay marriage was a minority view and most of America changed their minds on it. What bill is Johnson pushing to do these things in the current situation?

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 02:44 PM

I don't know the agenda, stated or unstated, of every "Christian right" group, for example, but my concern extends beyond groups to individuals especially prominent ones, whether or not they have the power or the intent to actually promote legislation. Acceptance and an end to prejudice are a matter of hearts and minds, not just law. Leaders who send that message, celebrities who send that message, parents who teach that message, going to perpetuate it IMO.

G1911 05-25-2024 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2437010)
I don't know the agenda, stated or unstated, of every "Christian right" group, for example, but my concern extends beyond groups to individuals especially prominent ones, whether or not they have the power or the intent to actually promote legislation. Acceptance and an end to prejudice are a matter of hearts and minds, not just law.

Exactly - this does not exist. There is no discernible real movement with any significant support to do anything to the gays beyond the horror of disagreeing with their lifestyle choices, as Butker did. No other group is immune from experiencing hurt feelings and dissent. There is no actual problem we can identify, and the obvious actual threat to gays we do not want to talk about.

We can throw out as many isms as we want, the feelings of a homosexual are not paramount to the speech of someone who does not support homosexuality. A right to free expression and speech is held by all; a right to never encounter dissent is held by none. An argument that a leftist view should not be expressed or held because it hurts the feelings and 'emotional health' of some conservatives would be immediately rejected, mocked and laughed at. This is just silly political theater, and not an actual problem. There is no right the gays do not have that everyone else does. There is no actual attack from Catholicism on them. There is merely dissent, and the desire to suppress that dissent.

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2437015)
Exactly - this does not exist. There is no discernible real movement with any significant support to do anything to the gays beyond the horror of disagreeing with their lifestyle choices, as Butker did. No other group is immune from experiencing hurt feelings and dissent. There is no actual problem we can identify, and the obvious actual threat to gays we do not want to talk about.

We can throw out as many isms as we want, the feelings of a homosexual are not paramount to the speech of someone who does not support homosexuality. A right to free expression and speech is held by all; a right to never encounter dissent is held by none. An argument that a leftist view should not be expressed or held because it hurts the feelings and 'emotional health' of some conservatives would be immediately rejected, mocked and laughed at. This is just silly political theater, and not an actual problem. There is no right the gays do not have that everyone else does. There is no actual attack from Catholicism on them. There is merely dissent, and the desire to suppress that dissent.

As I posted before, I am not suggesting any prior restraint on anyone's speech. That doesn't mean I cannot object after the fact. And if people use their celebrity stature to make speeches advocating that being gay is a "deadly sin," I do and will object.

G1911 05-25-2024 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2437016)
As I posted before, I am not suggesting any prior restraint on anyone's speech. That doesn't mean I cannot object after the fact. And if people use their celebrity stature to make speeches advocating that being gay is a "deadly sin," I do and will object.

Exactly. You may say as you like, under the same right that lets me say that this is inconsequential dissent and there are far, far, far worse major religions that do actually bad things to these people instead of just disagree with what you like.

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 03:18 PM

We agree on your second point but disagree on your first (inconsequential dissent).

earlywynnfan 05-25-2024 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2436895)
Different John responding, but I am a middle-age Catholic who would say this: humans cannot choose to change what God has said regarding what is a sin and what is not. They can choose to live the faith that their god has espoused or follow a different god or no god at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol..._homosexuality

The wikipedia page is pretty good at being even-handed when it comes to this subject.

I read the transcript of Butker's speech and though that over half was aimed at Cafeteria Catholics both in laypersons and in clergy, and the inability for clergy to even advocate for the faith accurately.

I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

Not asking this as a attack, just wondering if there's a response out there.

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2437030)
I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

Not asking this as a attack, just wondering if there's a response out there.

Or any woman not ovulating?

swarmee 05-25-2024 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2437030)
I've heard the "sex is intended for procreation" line of reasoning before when discussion homosexuality. If homosexuals should remain chaste because their sex cannot lead to procreation, shouldn't it follow that women past menopause should remain chaste? Or anyone, male or female, who are unable to have children for some reason?

All things are possible through God? There are multiple Bible references of women thought barren who conceived through prayer or faith.

Sex outside of marriage is also a mortal sin, not just gay sex. That's one reason that many priests are homosexual in leaning, I think the last number theorized was around 30%. Most are attempting to live chaste lives, so they serve the church as priests who agree to vows of celibacy. But they don't deny that gay sex is a sin.

Those who are having sex before getting married are usually counseled to not take Communion unless they repent (through Reconciliation) and live a chaste life, just like with every mortal sin. If you want to dig in further, I recommend talking with priests or deacons.

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 08:01 PM

Speaking only for myself, I do not believe God would give people the gift of sexuality, then want a huge percentage of people (gay and single) to have to stifle it, many for their entire lifetimes.

earlywynnfan 05-25-2024 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2437059)
All things are possible through God? There are multiple Bible references of women thought barren who conceived through prayer or faith.

Sex outside of marriage is also a mortal sin, not just gay sex. That's one reason that many priests are homosexual in leaning, I think the last number theorized was around 30%. Most are attempting to live chaste lives, so they serve the church as priests who agree to vows of celibacy. But they don't deny that gay sex is a sin.

Those who are having sex before getting married are usually counseled to not take Communion unless they repent (through Reconciliation) and live a chaste life, just like with every mortal sin. If you want to dig in further, I recommend talking with priests or deacons.

I am not trying to be cheeky here, but if God can make it possible for an 80-year old post-menopausal woman to become pregnant, he can also make a man become pregnant.

Casey2296 05-25-2024 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2437062)
I am not trying to be cheeky here, but if God can make it possible for an 80-year old post-menopausal woman to become pregnant, he can also make a man become pregnant.

Is there an instance of an 80 yer old woman getting pregnant?

Casey2296 05-25-2024 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2436951)
I will probably regret biting the bait :)

I do not believe in God, but I have read the Bible many times, read Augustine regularly etc., and generally look positively on the Christians and the Catholics. Wrong I think they are in matters of fact, but it is primarily Christian groups that I see actually trying to do good things in the community like feeding the poor. I would like a fellow to have a view that holds to reason and to be a good man, but I would rather have only the second than only the former.

I was considered left in the 2000's with the gay issue. I thought they should have equal rights and protections under the law (they now do), supported civil unions etc. I was not invested in the marriage issue, I had no objection beyond my general distaste for redefining terms to mean new things to suit the interest of a very politicized lobbying group. I am straight, have not married, and will never marry. I have no personal investment in it as an institution, beyond a generally positive historical view that it has produced social stability in the past. Now I am considered right on the LGBT stuff because I am cognizant that a man who says he is a woman is not a woman, and that there is a discernible actual reality distinctly different from what a person I identify as part of my tribe says. I am still not a turtle if I say I am.

I do not agree with the Catholics on many things, and I agree on some things (more on the values side, as I deny their rendition of how the world works). Marriage is both a state-sanctioned legal thing and a religious thing in most religions. The conservative Catholic response is really not very extreme. Yes, there are some small little groups of Christians who still think they are the spawn of satan, you can find extremes in ANY group of hundreds of millions of people. You will get some crazy extreme takes from homosexuals too (I heard far worse from social justice courses when I was attending a California university than anything a Catholic has told me). By and large, the opinion expressed is merely that the traditional ways are the right way to live, that homosexuality is sinful, and that God loves the sinner and hates the sin. It's really not that bad. I don't agree with it, I do not care what consenting adults do in privacy (I care a bit when a group insists on the sex parades and blocking traffic or inconveniencing me and having to sit through diversity spiels of political propaganda), but if THIS is the criticism facing a group, that group is doing amazingly well. I hear more intense disagreement than this kickers speech pretty much every day of my life without issue. I fundamentally object to the rising opinion that they should never have to hear criticism and that their world view is paramount to others rights of speech and that speech not consistent with LGBTQIA+-whatever-it-is-today propaganda needs to be censored from social platforms and public view as so many in the public are calling for and some have done, as I do for any group that wants to assign its feelings over others speech.

I note that people have a great courage of conviction when they believe the others won't do anything back to them for said courage. Christianity is freely and constantly attacked often over this rather mild stance on the gay issue, while there is no courage of conviction from gay rights activists to deal with Islam at all. If we cared about homosexuals, not political points, we would focus there. The Catholics are just an easier punching bag, an institution unpopular with those circles that takes criticism healthily and with a shrug and isn't out executing gays or people who criticize their faith. It seems to me fairly obvious that the actual religious threat to gays is not Christians who merely don't agree with them, like this kicker's rather innocuous speech that people are assigning value to for some reason.

+1

Peter_Spaeth 05-25-2024 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2437079)
Is there an instance of an 80 yer old woman getting pregnant?

Sarah (Abraham's wife) was 90, I think.

Mark17 05-26-2024 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2437060)
Speaking only for myself, I do not believe God would give people the gift of sexuality, then want a huge percentage of people (gay and single) to have to stifle it, many for their entire lifetimes.

Not only that, but if procreation was the only purpose for sex, why aren't women constructed to be able to get pregnant at any time during a month?

Women are only fertile about 6 days of every month. So, if a couple have sex daily, 80% of the time they don't even have a chance of conceiving.

I conclude sex obviously has other purposes than simply procreating.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 AM.